ÿWPCP» Á# žUN© %÷ 0o(ý4%9 0k”H 0DÜ 0J  0Tj 0^¾ 0h 0r„U™.ö 0|$ 0†  0& B¶ 1uÓUm,H 0dtU,ØUs> B)B DCk AM® óû íî!wÛ%,R' ~( AO‹)KÚ)<%+a,8o-§.·/ZÅ0Æ27å2 0@4 0D\4 D/ 4 Ï48Ú57W8Zj9‡Ä:w@K<"‹<­= Ì>#Ö?ù@qBˆC%D²E¹F BÀGtÝG QI^JûcK<^L šM D3£N‡ÖN*]P ‡QL“RnßSfMUf³VÿXY0[5\;=] x^Cƒ_,Æ`,òa8c\Vd޲e”@gOÔi #k7.l2emû—nu’osqäzræ^t5Dv!ywšx4¸yBìzº.|,è~ €  -‚AIƒŠ„¦…«†°‡µˆ»‰ ÁŠLË‹6Ž~·5‘M:’‡“YŒ”Må•2˜I¿™í› õœåžxúŸ r¢œ|£û§¨ £©¯ªS½«û­2 ®2=¯ˆo°v~÷³vÓuµH»˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Ô¡¨ 3|x÷(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô%ä2¼A`ArialTT2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d# ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d99997Border 1dd`c;Cþÿ << Gÿÿ éÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMay€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€ÔThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€contemplate€the€filing€of€onlyÏone€notice€of€appeal.€When€one€party€invokes€the€jurisdiction€of€the€appellate€court,€anÏadverse€party€may€raise€affirmative€issues.€€Furthermore,€the€rules€contemplate€anÏappellant€€and€an€appellee.€€Rule€13(a),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.,€states:€€"Cross„appeals,Ïseparate€appeals,€and€separate€applications€for€permission€to€appeal€are€notÏrequired.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€800€S.W.2d€169,€170„71€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.ÏValentineóó,€659€S.W.2d€27,€29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983);€ÏòòEdwards€v.€Huntóó,€635€S.W.2d€696,€698€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1982).€€James€Thomas€Jefferson€will€be€referred€to€as€the€appellant€throughout€thisÏopinion.Ì mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòState€ex€rel.€Jefferson€v.€Stateóó,€222€Tenn.€413,€436€S.W.2d€437€(1969)€(theÏcase€was€remanded€to€the€criminal€court€where€bond€was€set).Ì "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€529€S.W.2d€674€(Tenn.€1975).€€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJeffersonóó,€529€S.W.2d€at€677.€Ì`cdeCþÿ<< Cÿÿ AÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€559€S.W.2d€649€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1977).Ì 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJefferson€v.€Duttonóó,€607€F.€Supp.€355€(M.D.€Tenn.€1985).Ô€6ÔÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJeffersonóó,€607€F.€Supp.€at€361.Ì .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòÔ€ÔJefferson€v.€Duttonóó,€No.€85„5335,€1986€WL€17211€(6th€Cir.€June€10,€1986).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJeffersonóó,€1986€WL€17211€at€*1„2.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJeffersonóó,€1986€WL€17211€at€*2.Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€769€S.W.2d€875€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1988),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1989).̃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 -Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJefferson€v.€Morganóó,€962€F.2d€1185€(6th€Cir.€1992).Ô€6ÔÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó‘‘'÷ÿ dxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJeffersonóó,€962€F.2d€at€1192.Ì .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòMorgan€v.€Jeffersonóó,€506€U.S.€905,€113€S.Ct.€297,€121€L.Ed.2d€221€(1992).Ì ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1990).Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1990).Ì }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352ÏU.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.€39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).Ô€6ÔÌ åæDçèDéDêëDìDíîÓ€ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.Ô€6ÔÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòÔ€ÔState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ô€6ÔÌ gÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòseeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,Ï61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€€Ô€6ÔÌ ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô590€S.W.2d€435€(Tenn.€1979).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòState€v.€Delkóó,€692€S.W.2d€431€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòDelkóó,€692€S.W.2d€at€437.Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòDelkóó,€692€S.W.2d€at€438.ÌüÿP Pd jÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔDavidson€County€No.€01„C„01„9012„CR„00336€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏOctober€29,€1991),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1992).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòDavid€Carneyóó,€Slip€op.€at€4„5.Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô529€S.W.2d€674€(Tenn.€1975).Ì ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô529€S.W.2d€at€690.Ì 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô751€S.W.2d€440€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1988).Ì ÿÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBurtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€at€445.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThis€minute€entry€is€inconsistent€with€the€testimony€of€Judge€Shriver€thatÏJudge€Leathers€would€not€permit€multiple€indictments€to€be€consolidated€for€trial.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€òòJefferson€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d.€674€(Tenn.€1975).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJeffersonóó,€529€S.W.2d€at€677.Ì BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJefferson€v.€Stateóó,€559€S.W.2d€649€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1977).Ì dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThere€is€no€explanation€in€the€record€why€the€state€did€not€reindict€theÏappellant€for€the€two€assaults€with€intent€to€commit€murder.Ì \Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòState€v.€James€Thomas€Jeffersonóó,€Davidson€County€No.€01„C„01„9304„CR„00137€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€19,€1993).Ì \Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòÔ€ÔState€v.€James€Thomas€Jeffersonóó,€Davidson€County€No.€01„S„01„9307„CR„00103€(Tenn.€Sp.€Ct.,€Nashville,€August€30,€1993).Ì õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔU.S.€Const.€amend.€VI.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòKlopfer€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€386€U.S.€213,€87€S.Ct.€988,€18€L.Ed.2d€1€(1967);ÏòòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.€Kolbóó,€755€S.W.2d€472,€473Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòBeard€v.€Stateóó,€485€S.W.2d€882,€886€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1972).Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9.Ì þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„101.Ì 1Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€òòArrowsmith€v.€Stateóó,€131€Tenn.€480,€484,€175€S.W.€545,€546€(1915).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô131€Tenn.€at€488,€175€S.W.€at€547.Ì 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514,€519,€92€S.Ct.€2182,€2186,€33€L.Ed.2d€101,€110Ï(1972).Ì "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€519,€92€S.Ct.€at€2186,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€110.Ì "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€519,€92€S.Ct.€at€2186,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€111.Ì .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô407€U.S.€at€519„20,€92€S.Ct.€at€2186„87,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€111€(footnotesÏomitted).Ì RÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€648,€654,€112€S.Ct.€2686,€2692,€15ÏL.Ed.2d€627€(1992)€(citations€omitted).Ì „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Marionóó,€404€U.S.€307,€313,€92€S.Ct.€455,€459,€30ÏL.Ed.2d€468,€474€(1971);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€614€S.W.2d€352,€353„54€(Tenn.€1981).Ì ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòMitchell€v.€Stateóó,€593€S.W.2d€280,€286€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€449€U.S.€845,Ï101€S.Ct.€128,€66€L.Ed.2d€53€(1980);€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€795€S.W.2d€680,€686€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€733€S.W.2d€517,€522„23Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Mingledorffóó,€713€S.W.2d€88,Ï89€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).Ì EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBoswell€v.€Stateóó,€528€S.W.2d€825,€827€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1975).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBoswellóó,€528€S.W.2d€at€827.€Ì -Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBakeróó,€614€S.W.2d€at€353€(Tenn.€1981);€òòBoswellóó,€528€S.W.2d€at€827.Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô528€S.W.2d€825€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1975).Ì ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô528€S.W.2d€at€827.Ì kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€651,€112€S.Ct.€at€2690,€120€L.Ed.2d€at€528;€òòBarkeróó,€407ÏU.S.€at€530,€92€S.Ct.€at€2192,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€117.€€Ì iÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€651,€112€S.Ct.€at€2690,€120€L.Ed.2d€at€528;€òòBarkeróó,€407ÏU.S.€at€530,€92€S.Ct.€at€2192,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€117.Ì ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòÔ€ÔBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530,€92€S.Ct.€at€2192,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€116„17;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.ÏBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83„84€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.€Perkinsóó,€713€S.W.2d€689,€691Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1986).Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóóòò€òòóóSmith€v.€Stateóó,€168€Tenn.€265,€77€S.W.2d€450€(1935);€òòArrowsmith€v.ÏStateóó,€131€Tenn.€480,€175€S.W.2d€545€(1915);€€òòState€v.€Wallaceóó,€648€S.W.2d€264Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981).Ì +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€527„31,€92€S.Ct.€at€2190„92,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€115„17.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô407€U.S.€at€528,€92€S.Ct.€at€2191,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€115„16.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô407€U.S.€at€527,€92€S.Ct.€at€2190,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€115.Ì *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô505€U.S.€at€655,€112€S.Ct.€at€2692,€120€L.Ed.2d€at€530€(citations€omitted).Ì 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô505€U.S.€at€658,€112€S.Ct.€at€2694,€120€L.Ed.2d€at€532€(citations€andÏfootnotes€omitted).Ì °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(a)€and€(b).€The€testimony€of€a€witness€at€a€former€trialÏmay€be€€read€into€the€record€at€a€subsequent€trial€of€the€same€case€when€the€witnessÏhas€died,€is€unable€to€attend€due€to€a€physical€or€mental€illness,€or€the€witness€cannotÏbe€served€with€the€process€of€the€court.€€The€state€certainly€would€have€had€both€theÏopportunity€and€the€same€or€similar€motive€ð ðto€develop€the€testimony€by€direct,€cross,Ïor€redirect€examination.ðð€Ì "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€527,€92€S.Ct.€at€2190,€33€L.Ed.2d€at€115.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô131€Tenn.€480,€175€S.W.€545€(1915).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô168€Tenn.€265,€77€S.W.2d€450€(1934).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSmithóó,€168€Tenn.€at€266„67,€77€S.W.2d€at€450.Ì 7Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô648€S.W.2d€264€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô488€U.S.€51,€109€S.Ct.€333,€102€L.Ed.2d€281€(1988).Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔExhibit€34,€vol.€45,€p.€337.Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔExhibit€37,€vol.€45,€p.€340.Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔExhibit€56,€vol.€48,€p.€761.Ì üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔExhibit€71,€vol.€51,€p.€1223.Ì üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔExhibit€81,€vol.€55,€p.€1776.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2.Ì BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€682,€105€S.Ct.€3375,€3383,€87€L.Ed.2dÏ481,€494€(1985).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô514€U.S.€____,€115€S.Ct.€1555,€131€L.Ed.2d€490€(1995).Ì wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô514€U.S.€at€_____,€115€S.Ct.€at€1566,€131€L.Ed.2d€at€506€(quoting€òòBagley€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€473€U.S.€at€678,€105€S.Ct.€at€3381,€87€L.Ed.2d€at€491).Ì tÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòKylesóó,€514€U.S.€at€_____,€115€S.Ct.€at€1565„66,€131€L.Ed.2d€at€506;€òòBagleyóó,Ï473€U.S.€at€682„83,€105€S.Ct.€at€3383„84,€87€L.Ed.2d€at€491.€Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô505€S.W.2d€712€(Tenn.€1974).Ì CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô550€S.W.2d€643€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€434€U.S.€905,€98€S.Ct.€303,€54€L.Ed.2dÏ182€(1977).Ì ûÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô584€S.W.2d€758€(Tenn.€1979).Ì OÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòMilleróó,€584€S.W.2d€at€762,€òòopinionóó€òòonóó€òòpetitionóó€òòtoóó€òòrehearóó,€584€S.W.2d€at€765.Ì CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔChapter€4€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1919€repealed€Chapter€181€of€the€Public€ActsÏof€1915.€€Apparently,€Chapter€181€was€repealed€twice;€once€in€Chapter€14€of€theÏPublic€Acts€of€1917€and€Chapter€4€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1919.€€òòState€v.€Bomaróó,€212ÏTenn.€149,€368€S.W.2d€748€(1963),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€376€U.S.€915,€84€S.Ct.€670,€11ÏL.Ed.2d€612€(1964).Ì ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔChapter€5€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1919€provides€for€a€punishment€for€first€degreeÏmurder€of€death€or€twenty€years€to€life€if€mitigating€factors€are€found€by€the€jury.Ì ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€òòHaynes€v.€McKenzie€Memorial€Hosp.óó,€667€S.W.2d€497,€498„99€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1984).Ì ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòÔ€ÔBarger€v.€Brockóó,€535€S.W.2d€337,€340„341€(Tenn.€1976);€€òòBloodworth€v.ÏStuartóó,€221€Tenn.€567,€672,€428€S.W.2d€786,€789€(1968);€òòseeóó€òòRichardson€v.€Johnsonóó,Ï60€Tenn.€App.€129,€134,€444€S.W.2d€708,€711,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1969).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòBargeróó,€535€S.W.2d€at€340„341€(citation€omitted).Ì ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„117(c)€(1990)€states:€€"For€all€persons€whoÏcommitted€crimes€prior€to€July€1,€1982,€prior€law€shall€apply€and€remain€in€full€forceÏand€effect€in€every€respect,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€sentencing,€parole€andÏprobation."Ì nÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòStrunk€v.€Stateóó,€209€Tenn.€1,€6„9,€348€S.W.2d€339,€342„43€(1957);€òòAlexanderÏv.€Stateóó,€189€Tenn.€340,€225€S.W.2d€254€(1949);€òòJenkins€v.€Stateóó,€509€S.W.2d€240,Ï247„48;€òòGwinn€v.€Stateóó,€595€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1979);€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€526€S.W.2d€130,€133„34€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1975).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòJenkinsóó,€509€S.W.2d€247„48.Ì ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€òòStrunkóó,€209€Tenn.€at€6„9,€348€S.W.2d€at€342„43;€€òòRiley€v.€Stateóó,€189ÏTenn.€697,€227€S.W.2d€32€(1950);€€òòAlexander€v.€Stateóó,€189€Tenn.€340,€225€S.W.2dÏ254;€òòState€v.€Underwoodóó,€669€S.W.2d€700,€705€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1984);€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€663€S.W.2d€809,€812€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983);€€òòGwinn€v.€Stateóó,€595€S.W.2d€at€835;€òòMeade€v.€Stateóó,€530€S.W.2dÏ784,€787€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1975);€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€526€S.W.2dÏ130,€133„34€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1975);€€òòJenkinsóó,€507€S.W.2d€247„48.Ì ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô569€S.W.2d€at€464.Ì †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòState€v.€Alexanderóó,€189€Tenn.€340,€225€S.W.2d€254;€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€788ÏS.W.2d€820,€825€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô209€Tenn.€1,€348€S.W.2d€339€(1957).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô189€Tenn.€340,€225€S.W.2d€254€(1949).Ì IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô575€S.W.2d€948€(Tenn.€1978),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€442€U.S.€932,€99€S.Ct.€2866,€61ÏL.Ed.2d€302€(1979).Ì ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô575€S.W.2d€at€949.Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô526€S.W.2d€130€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1975).Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô509€S.W.2d€240€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1974).Ì ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€òòDaniels€v.€Stateóó,€176€Tenn.€181,€184,€140€S.W.2d€148,€149€(1940)€(€aÏverdict€where€the€jury€set€a€fine€at€less€than€the€minimum€for€the€offense€is€"a€voidÏverdict.€€The€court€is€without€power€to€fix€the€minimum€statutory€fine.€.€.€.");€òòMurphy€v.ÏStateóó,€47€Tenn.€516,€524€(1870)(a€verdict€setting€the€punishment€for€less€than€theÏstatutory€minimum€is€not€authorized€by€law,€ð ðthe€verdict€[is]€a€mere€nullity,€and€theÏCourt€ha[s]€no€power€to€pronounce€a€judgment€upon€it.");€òòJenkins€v.€Stateóó,€509€S.W.2dÏat€247€("[A]€verdict€fixing€punishment€below€the€statutory€minimum€for€the€offense€ofÏwhich€the€defendant€is€found€guilty€is€a€nullity.")€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÓ&€55X„d&ÓÑ#€55Xd#ÑÔ€6ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€`ÙÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßL€<B;;+'h|` ç `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÓÓNOVEMBER€1994€œSESSIONÌÌ›ÌÓ  ÓœSTATE›€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àœAPPELLEE,à à›à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„C„01„9403„CR„00084Ìà àà àà àà àà à€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€à àà à)€à àDavidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWalter€C.€Kurtz,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Murder€First€Degree)ÌJAMES€THOMAS€JEFFERSON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€œAPPELLANT.›à àà à)ÌÌÌœFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àà àFOR›€THE€œAPPELLEE:›à àœÌÌJeffrey€A.€DeVasherà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌSenior€Assistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&ÏReporterÌ211€Union€Street,€Suite€1202à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37201„5066à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì(Appeal€Only)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChristina€S.€ShevalierÌPeter€D.€Heilà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ211€Union€Street,€Suite€1202à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌNashville,€TN€37201„5066à àà àà àà àà àÌ(Appeal€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌKarl€F.€Deanà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500ÌMetropolitan€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌ211€Union€Street,€Suite€1202à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌNashville,€TN€37201„5066Ì(Trial€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€D.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌDavid€M.€Siegelà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500›ÌœAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌ211€Union€Street,€Suite€1202à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌNashville,€TN€37201„5066Ì(Trial€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àCheryl€A.€BlackburnÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649Ìà àÌÌOPINION›€œFILED:_________________________à àà àà à›ÌÌÌCONVICTION€AFFIRMED;€REMANDED€FOR€NEW€SENTENCING€HEARINGÌÌœÌJoe›€B.€Jones,€JudgeÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óó óÌÑ7€¦ XXdìXXdì7ÑØØÙ  ÙÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€James€Thomas€Jefferson,€was€convicted€of€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree€and€sentenced€to€life€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Both€the€State€ofÏTennessee€and€the€appellant€filed€notices€of€appeal,€and€they€both€have€presentedÏissues€for€this€Court€to€review.× ƒD ××  ×Ìà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€presents€one€issue€for€review.€€The€state€contends€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€by€dismissing€Count€VI€of€the€indictment,€which€alleges€the€offenseÍof€rape,€because€the€state€did€not€provide€the€appellant€with€a€speedy€trial€as€to€thisÏoffense.Ìà àThe€appellant€presents€five€issues€for€review.€€The€issues€presented€are:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° ÒÓ` „X" ¸ —XÓÓÓI.à àThe€passage€of€time,€dispersion€of€witnesses,€erosion€ofÏmemories€and€loss€of€defense€evidence€rendered€the€convictionÏunreliable€in€violation€of€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.ÌÌII.à àThe€trial€court€erred€by€substituting€a€term€of€life€imprisonmentÏfor€the€juryððs€verdict€imposing€40€years€imprisonment.ÌÌIII.à àThe€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€Defendant€to€presentÏevidence€on€the€issue€whether€Defendantððs€lineup€was€conductedÏin€an€unfairly€suggestive€manner.ÌÌIV.à àThe€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€Barbara€Bolte€to€display€herÏscars€to€the€jury.ÌÌV.à àThe€evidence€was€insufficient€to€establish€the€elements€ofÏpremeditated€murder.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ ` „°šXÓÓÓœà àThe›€appellantððs€conviction€for€premeditated€murder€is€affirmed.€€This€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔHISTORY€OF€PRIOR€PROCEEDINGSó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àOn€July€23,€1968,€the€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€returned€four€indictmentsÏagainst€the€appellant.€€One€indictment€alleges€that€the€appellant€murdered€the€victim,ÏJohn€Robert€Bolte,€on€or€about€the€15th€day€of€June,€1968.€€Another€alleges€that€theÏappellant€raped€the€victimððs€wife,€Barbara€Bolte.€€A€third€indictment€charged€theÏappellant€with€assault€with€attempt€to€commit€murder€in€the€first€degree€as€to€BarbaraÏBolte.€€The€final€indictment€charged€the€appellant€with€assault€with€attempt€to€commitÍmurder€in€the€first€degree€as€to€the€œBoltesðð›€infant€child,€Dara€Bolte.€€Ìà àThe€appellant€was€arrested€on€July€1,€1968.€€On€July€2,€1968,€the€appellantÏpetitioned€the€general€sessions€court€to€admit€him€to€bail.€€The€court€denied€theÏpetition.€€On€July€3,€1968,€the€appellant€filed€a€petition€in€the€criminal€court,€allegedÏwhat€had€occurred€in€the€general€sessions€court,€and€asked€the€court€to€admit€him€toÏbail.€€The€criminal€court€refused€to€entertain€the€petition€based€on€a€statute€governingÏsuccessive€applications€for€bail.€€The€appellant€then€sought€relief€in€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court.€€On€January€17,€1969,€the€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€the€petition€filedÏin€the€criminal€court€should€be€considered€an€appeal€of€the€proceedings€conducted€inÏthe€general€sessions€court,€and€the€criminal€court€should€treat€the€petitionÏaccordingly.× ƒF ××  ×Ìà àThe€appellant€was€tried€for€the€murder€of€Mr.€Bolte.€€€The€trial€commenced€onÏOctober€28,€1969.€€When€the€jury€could€not€reach€a€unanimous€verdict,€the€trial€courtÏdeclared€a€mistrial.Ìà àThe€second€trial€for€the€murder€of€Mr.€Bolte€commenced€on€January€18,€1971.€ÏThe€jury€convicted€the€appellant€of€murder€in€the€first€degree€and€sentenced€theÏappellant€to€confinement€for€ninety„nine€(99)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏThis€Court€affirmed€the€appellantððs€conviction€and€sentence.× ƒH ××  ×€€However,€the€case€wasÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€allegation€contained€in€theÏappellantððs€plea€in€abatement,€i.e.,€whether€African„Americans€were€systematicallyÍexcluded€from€the€grand€jury€that€indicted€him€and€the€petit€jury€that€convicted€him.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€initially€granted€the€appellant's€petition€for€the€writ€of€certiorari€toÏreview€this€Courtððs€order€of€remand.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€summarilyÏaffirmed€this€Courtððs€judgment.× ƒL ××  ×Ìà àOn€remand,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€the€plea€in€abatement€on€March€22Ïand€23,€1976.€€The€trial€court€took€the€matter€under€advisement.€€On€April€7,€1976,€theÏtrial€court€€overruled€the€plea€in€abatement.€€This€Court€affirmed€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.× ƒO ××  ×€€The€Supreme€Court€denied€the€appellant's€petition€for€the€writ€of€certiorariÏon€October€11,€1977.Ìà àOn€April€1,€1982,€the€appellant€filed€a€petition€for€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus€inÏthe€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee.€€The€appellantÏalleged€that€African„Americans€were€systematically€excluded€from€the€grand€jury€thatÏindicted€him€and€the€petit€jury€that€convicted€him.€€On€September€28,€1984,€anÏevidentiary€hearing€was€conducted€on€the€grounds€raised€in€the€petition.€€On€MarchÏ30,€1985,€the€district€court€ruled€that€the€appellant€established€a€prima€facie€case€ofÏsystematic€exclusion€of€African„Americans€from€the€grand€jury€that€indicted€him,€andÏthe€warden,€the€defendant,€had€failed€to€rebut€the€prima€facie€case.× ƒQ ××  ×€€The€State€ofÏTennessee€was€given€ninety€(90)€days€to€reindict€the€appellant€or€grant€him€hisÍfreedom.× ƒS ××  ×€€On€April€30,€1985,€the€district€court€stayed€the€judgment€pending€appeal€toÏthe€Sixth€Circuit.€€The€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.× ƒU ××  ×€€The€Sixth€Circuit€ruled€that€the€appellant€had€not€exhausted€his€state€remediesÏbefore€filing€the€habeas€corpus€action.× ƒW ××  ×€€€The€case€was€remanded€to€the€district€courtÏwith€instructions€to€dismiss€the€habeas€corpus€action€without€prejudice.× ƒY ××  ×Ìà àThe€appellant€filed€a€post„conviction€action€in€Davidson€County.€€The€trial€courtÏdenied€the€appellant€relief€from€either€his€conviction€or€sentence.€€This€Court€affirmedÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.× ƒ_ ××  ×€€The€Supreme€Court€denied€the€appellant'sÏapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€on€April€3,€1989.Ìà àThe€second€petition€for€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus€was€filed€in€the€District€CourtÏfor€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee€on€May€10,€1989.€€The€magistrate€recommendedÏthat€the€district€court€reinstate€its€prior€decision.€€On€May€20,€1991,€the€trial€courtÏadopted€the€recommendation€of€the€magistrate,€reinstated€its€prior€decision,€and€gaveÏthe€State€of€Tennessee€ninety€(90)€days€to€either€reindict€the€appellant€or€release€him.€ÏHowever,€this€order€was€stayed€pending€the€wardenððs€appeal.€€The€Sixth€CircuitÍaffirmed€the€judgment€of€the€district€court€on€April€1,1992.× ƒa ××  ×€€The€Court€directed€theÏState€of€Tennessee€to€reindict€Jefferson€within€ninety€(90)€days€or€release€him€fromÏcustody.× ƒf ××  ×€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€denied€the€warden's€petition€for€a€writ€ofÏcertiorari€on€October€5,€1992.× ƒh ××  ×€Ìà àOn€July€24,€1992,€the€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€returned€a€six„countÏindictment€against€the€appellant.€€The€first€count€charged€the€appellant€with€felonyÏmurder,€the€felony€being€the€rape€of€Barbara€Bolte.€€The€second€count€of€theÏindictment€charged€the€appellant€with€felony€murder,€the€felony€being€robbery.€€TheÏthird€count€of€the€indictment€charged€the€appellant€with€felony€murder,€the€felony€beingÏburglary.€€The€fourth€count€of€the€indictment€charged€the€appellant€with€felony€murder,Ïthe€felony€being€larceny.€€The€fifth€count€of€the€indictment€charged€the€appellant€withÏpremeditated€murder.€€The€sixth€count€of€the€indictment€charged€that€the€appellantÏraped€Barbara€Bolte.Ìà àThe€appellant€moved€to€dismiss€Count€VI€of€the€indictment,€the€rape€count,Ïbecause€the€state€had€failed€to€provide€the€appellant€with€a€speedy€trial.€€A€hearingÏwas€conducted€on€the€motion€on€March€26,€1993.€€On€April€2,€1993,€the€trial€courtÏentered€an€order€finding€that€the€appellant€had€in€fact€been€denied€a€speedy€trial€inÏviolation€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€9€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution€and€dismissed€œCount€VI.›Ìà àThe€present€trial€commenced€on€August€9,€1993.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdictÏfinding€the€appellant€guilty€of€premeditated€murder€and€sentencing€him€to€serve€fortyÏ(40)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€state€moved€the€trial€court€to€correctÏthe€sentence€on€the€ground€that€the€ð ðonly€possible€punishment€for€the€offense€of€FirstÏDegree€Murder€as€to€this€defendant€is€Life€Imprisonment.ðð€€On€August€23,€1993,€theÏtrial€court€entered€an€order€modifying€the€sentence€and€imposing€a€sentence€ofÏconfinement€for€life€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motionÏfor€a€new€trial€on€October€22,€1993.ÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€June€15,€1968,€the€victim,€John€Robert€Bolte,Ïwas€asleep€in€his€bedroom.€€His€wife,€Barbara,€was€asleep€in€the€living€room.€€TheirÏchild€was€asleep€in€another€bedroom.Ìà àThe€appellant€entered€the€Bolte€residence€through€the€basement.€€He€went€to€aÏsmall€room€in€the€basement€and€armed€himself€with€an€axe.€€He€obtained€two€knives,Ïwhich€were€made€by€the€victim,€from€a€workbench€in€the€basement.€€He€also€obtainedÏa€pair€of€rubber€gloves€that€Mrs.€Bolte€used€when€washing€clothes.€€The€appellantÏremoved€his€shoes€before€ascending€the€stairway€leading€to€the€living€area€of€theÏœresidence.ò ò›Ìó ó€€à àThe€appellant€entered€the€bedroom€where€the€victim€was€sleeping€and€struckÏhim€with€the€axe€at€the€base€of€his€skull.€€The€blow€severed€the€victimððs€spinal€cord€asÏwell€as€the€carotid€artery,€which€delivers€the€main€blood€supply€to€the€brain.€€TheÏcause€of€death€was€exsanguination€„„€the€victim€bled€to€death.€€The€medical€examiner,Íwho€went€to€the€scene€of€the€murder€later€than€morning,€estimated€that€the€victim€diedÏat€2:00€a.m.€on€the€morning€of€June€15,€1968.Ìà àMrs.€Bolte€testified€that€she€was€awakened€by€someone€shaking€her.€€When€sheÏawoke,€she€discovered€that€the€appellant€was€the€person€shaking€her.€€She€beganÏkicking,€screaming,€and€yelling€for€her€husband.€€She€also€remembered€a€knife€bladeÏprotruding€from€her€arm.€€She€pulled€the€blade€from€her€arm€and€lost€consciousness.€ÏShe€went€in€and€out€of€consciousness€throughout€the€whole€ordeal.€€However,€sheÏremembered€the€appellant€telling€her:€ð ðOkay,€Iððll€take€you€to€that€dead€son„of„a€bitch.ðð€ÏThe€appellant€took€her€into€the€bedroom€and€raped€her€on€the€bedroom€floor€as€herÏhusband€lay€dead€on€the€bed.€€She€also€remembered€the€appellant€putting€on€hisÏpants,€walking€over€her,€going€to€the€bed,€taking€a€watch€from€her€husbandððs€arm,€andÏwalking€over€her€as€he€left€the€bedroom.€€The€axe€was€lying€on€the€side€of€the€bed.€ÏLater,€when€Mrs.€Bolte€tried€to€get€up,€the€appellant€hit€her€on€the€head€with€the€axeÏknocking€her€unconscious.Ìà àWhen€Mrs.€Bolte€regained€consciousness,€she€saw€the€appellant€going€throughÏthe€dresser€drawers€in€the€bedroom.€€The€appellant€turned€off€the€lights€and€left€theÏroom.€€Later,€he€returned€to€the€bedroom€and€rummaged€through€the€closet.€€WhenÏMrs.€Bolte€regained€consciousness,€she€was€lying€in€the€bed€with€her€husband.Ìà àThe€appellant€stabbed€Mrs.€Bolte€in€the€left€arm,€fractured€her€left€arm,€andÏbruised€both€of€her€eyes.€€She€also€had€a€laceration€to€her€forehead,€a€laceration€toÏthe€right€shoulder,€a€stab€wound€to€the€left€side€of€her€neck,€and€a€laceration€to€herÏabdomen.€€She€was€confined€to€a€hospital€for€several€days.Ìà àMrs.€Bolte€made€a€positive€identification€of€the€appellant€in€a€lineup.€€She€alsoÍmade€a€courtroom€identification€of€the€appellant.€€When€the€appellant€was€arrested,€heÏhad€two€liberty€dimes,€eleven€buffalo€nickels,€and€a€couple€of€fountain€pens.€€A€jar€ofÏIndian„head€pennies,€buffalo€nickels,€and€liberty€œdimes›€was€taken€from€the€BolteÏresidence.€€The€victimððs€watch€was€traced€to€the€appellant.€€A€jeweler€had€etched€theÏname€of€Bolte€on€several€parts€of€the€watch,€and€the€jeweler€identified€the€watch.€ÏWhen€the€police€recovered€the€watch,€the€appellant€had€etched€the€letters€J„E„F„F„EÏinside€the€watch.€€The€appellant€tried€to€sell€the€watch€to€a€co„employee,€but€he€did€notÏpurchase€it.€€However,€another€employee€purchased€the€watch€from€the€appellant.€ÏAlso,€a€police€officer€was€able€to€obtain€a€palm€print€from€the€inside€of€a€rubber€gloveÏused€by€the€perpetrator.€€A€technique€involving€a€special€dye€was€used€to€obtain€theÏprint.€€The€palm€print€matched€the€known€palm€print€of€the€appellant.à à€€€Ìà àThe€appellant€had€a€hearing€deficit.€€He€wore€a€hearing€aid€in€one€of€his€ears.€ÏMrs.€Bolte€saw€the€hearing€aid€and€described€it€to€the€police.€€However,€he€was€notÏwearing€the€hearing€aid€when€he€appeared€in€the€lineup.Ìà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€toÏsupport€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€he€was€guilty€of€premeditated€murderÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€the€killing€of€theÏvictim€was€committed€ð ð(1)€with€a€cool€purpose,€(2)€without€passion€or€provocation,€andÏ(3)€with€a€previously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.ðð€€He€suggests€that€this€Court€shouldÏreduce€the€conviction€from€murder€in€the€first€degree€to€murder€in€the€second€degree.Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÍð ðto€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð× ƒl ××  ×€€ThisÏstandard€of€review€is€applicable€to€findings€based€upon€direct€evidence,€circumstantialÏevidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.× ƒn ××  ×€€Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.× ƒs ××  ×€€œNor›€may€this€Court€substitute€its€inferences€forÏthose€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.× ƒu ××  ×€€œTo›€the€contrary,€thisÏCourt€is€required€to€afford€the€State€of€Tennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.× ƒx ××  ×€€à àœÌà àQuestions›€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.× ƒz ××  ×€€In€òòState€v.€Graceóó,× ƒ| ××  ×€€our€Supreme€CourtÍsaid:€ð ðA€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€ofÏthe€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ððÌà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.× ƒ~ ××  ×€€This€Court€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€all€reasonable€inferences€thatÏmay€be€drawn€from€the€evidence€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trierÏof€fact€to€find€that€the€accused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.× ƒ‚ ××  ×€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€there€is€sufficient€evidence€contained€in€the€record€to€support€aÏfinding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€the€appellant€was€guilty€of€premeditated€murderÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.× ƒ… ××  ×€€This€Court€finds€without€hesitation€or€reservation€thatÏthe€killing€of€the€victim€constituted€premeditated€murder.€€The€Boltes€did€not€know€norÏhad€they€ever€seen€the€appellant.€There€was€at€total€void€of€passion€or€provocation.€HeÏwalked€into€the€residence€and€casually€armed€himself€with€several€weapons.€€HeÏœcalmly,€and›€with€cool€purpose,€removed€his€shoes,€ascended€the€stairs,€and€killed€theÏvictim€while€he€was€asleep.€€He€apparently€thought€that€he€had€killed€Mrs.€Bolte€asÏwell.€€Obviously,€the€appellant€did€not€want€anyone€to€interfere€with€him€as€heÍsearched€the€residence€for€items€of€value.€€He€further€did€not€want€to€leave€anyoneÏalive€that€could€identify€him.€€He€took€time€to€rape€Mrs.€Bolte€on€the€bedroom€floorÏwhile€her€husband€was€dying€in€the€bed.€€There€is€sufficient€direct€and€circumstantialÏevidence€to€establish€a€previously€formed€design€and€intent€to€murder€the€people€whoÏresided€in€that€residence.Ìà àThis€issue€is€clearly€without€merit.€€ÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔÌSUPPRESSION€OF€LINEUP€IDENTIFICATIONó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óò òà àó óThe€appellant€was€placed€in€a€lineup€shortly€after€his€arrest.€€Mrs.€BolteÏattended€the€lineup€and€made€a€positive€identification€of€the€appellant€as€theÏperpetrator€of€the€crimes€committed€on€the€morning€of€June€15,€1968.€€Prior€to€the€trialÏin€this€case,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€lineup€identification€made€byÏMrs.€Bolte.€€The€trial€court€summarily€dismissed€this€motion€on€December€2,€1992.€€InÏruling,€the€trial€court€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€issue€related€to€the€constitutionality€of€his€lineup€wasÏfully€and€fairly€litigated€before€the€original€trial€judge€andÏspecifically€affirmed€by€the€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏJeffersonóó,€[529€S.W.2d€674€(Tenn.€1975)]€at€690.€€ThisÏCourt€declines€to€allow€the€relitigation€of€this€issue€when€itÏhas€already€been€specifically€determined€adverse€to€theÏdefendant[']s€contention.€€The€Motion€to€SuppressÏIdentification€is€denied.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€refusing€to€conduct€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€merits€of€the€motionÏto€suppress€the€lineup€identification.€€He€argues€that€before€the€law€of€the€case€may€beÍinvoked,€it€must€appear€that€the€issue€in€the€previous€trial€was€identical€to€the€issue€inÏthe€present€trial,€and€that€the€previous€courtððs€decision€was€not€clearly€erroneous.€€TheÏappellant€reasons€that€because€the€trial€judge€did€not€make€a€finding€that€the€priorÏruling€was€not€clearly€erroneous,€this€issue€is€not€the€law€of€the€case.€€The€stateÏstrongly€disagrees€with€this€argument.€€The€state€contends€the€issues€are€identical€andÏthe€prior€ruling€of€this€Court€was€not€clearly€erroneous.€€The€state€parenthetically€notesÏthat€the€appellant€was€permitted€to€present€evidence€of€the€purported€suggestivenessÏof€the€lineup€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€€Moreover,€the€jury€heard€the€testimony€ofÏMrs.€Bolte€and€the€testimony€of€the€purported€suggestiveness.€€The€jury,€as€the€trier€ofÏfact,€could€attribute€whatever€weight€it€deemed€appropriate€regarding€the€appellant'sÏidentification€as€the€person€who€murdered€John€Robert€Bolte.Ìà àThe€law€of€the€case€doctrine€is€predicated€upon€the€need€for€judicial€economy.€ÏAs€a€general€rule,€a€court€will€not€reconsider€an€issue€once€it€has€been€decided.€ÏHowever,€the€application€of€this€doctrine€is€discretionary.€€It€is€not€a€restraint€upon€theÏpowers€of€a€court.€€Thus,€a€court€may,€in€the€exercise€of€its€discretion,€reconsider€suchÏan€issue.€€If€the€facts€and€circumstances€warrant,€the€court€may€resolve€the€issueÏdifferently€than€before.Ìà àIn€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó,× ƒ‰ ××  ×€the€Supreme€Court€reversed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏand€remanded€the€cause€for€a€new€trial€due€to€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€Delk€wasÏtried€and€convicted€following€remand.€€He€appealed€this€conviction.× ƒ‹ ××  ×€€In€theÍsubsequent€appeal€Delk€contended,€as€he€did€in€the€first€appeal,€that€"the€trial€courtÏerred€in€allowing€into€evidence€the€discarded€papers€from€the€victim's€store€that€wereÏfound€in€Rose€Clayborne's€yard."× ƒ ××  ×€€In€resolving€this€issue,€this€Court€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThis€identical€issue€was€found€to€be€without€merit€by€ourÏstate€Supreme€Court€in€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó.€.€.€.€€That€holding€isÏthus€the€law€of€the€case€and€must€be€followed€here€unlessÏclearly€erroneous.ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*€*ÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà8 àThe€Supreme€Court's€decision€on€the€relevance€of€theÏevidence€was€echoed€by€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€AppealsÏin€òòDelk€v.€Atkinsonóó,€665€F.2d€90,€100€(6th€Cir.€1981).€€SinceÏthe€prior€holding€on€this€issue€cannot€be€said€to€be€clearlyÏerroneous,€it€must€also€be€applied€to€the€present€case.× ƒ ××  ×ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àœIn›€òòDavid€Carney€v.€Stateóó,× ƒ“ ××  ×€a€post„conviction€action,€this€Court€was€required€toÏdecide€the€appeal€of€the€petitioner's€fourth€suit.€€This€Court€noted€that€the€same€issuesÏraised€on€appeal€had€been€previously€decided€by€another€panel€of€the€court.€€In€ruling,Ïthe€Court€quoted€the€previous€opinion€in€its€entirety€and€said:ÌÓÓÌœà8 àà8 àThe›€foregoing€opinion€is€the€law€of€the€case.€.€.€.€€In€theÏabsence€of€demonstrable€error€in€the€first€decision,€theÏdoctrine€of€the€law€of€the€case€governs€successive€appealsÏinvolving€substantially€the€same€issues€and€facts.€€See€theÏteaching€and€citations€in€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€324€S.W.2d€693Í(Sup.€Ct.€Mo.€1959).× ƒ• ××  ×ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€motion€filed€by€the€appellant€is€generic€in€form.€€It€alleges€that:€€"The€out„of„court€identification€procedure€was€so€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€a€very€substantialÏlikelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification."€€This€is€the€precise€issue€that€was€raised€byÏthe€appellant€when€he€appealed€his€conviction.€€Furthermore,€the€prior€decision€of€thisÏCourt,€which€was€adopted€by€the€Supreme€Court,€is€not€"clearly€erroneous"€as€heÏsuggests.€€As€the€late€Mark€A.€Walker€stated€in€the€first€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó:× ƒ— ××  ×ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant€urges€that€Mrs.€Bolte's€testimony€ofÏidentification€was€the€result€of€an€unduly€suggestive€lineup.€ÏHe€also€says€he€should€have€had€an€attorney€at€the€lineup.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant€had€no€constitutional€right€to€an€attorney€atÏthe€preindictment€lineup.€.€.€.€€The€defendant€signed€aÏwaiver€of€any€right€to€an€attorney€and€at€no€time€requestedÏone.€€Although€the€officers€undertook€to€get€an€attorney€fromÏthe€public€defender's€staff€to€attend€and€waited€some€timeÏfor€him€to€arrive,€it€was€not€necessary€under€theseÏcircumstances€for€him€to€be€there.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€defendant€was€one€of€five€black€men€in€similar€dress€atÏthe€lineup.€€His€hearing€aid€was€removed€and€there€wasÏnothing€to€indicate€that€he€had€a€hearing€problem.€€All€menÏrepeated€the€same€words€spoken€to€Mrs.€Bolte€at€the€sceneÏof€the€crime.ò ò€€ó óMrs.€Bolte€immediately€recognized€theÏdefendant€when€she€saw€him€in€the€lineup.€€It€is€clear€thatÏthe€lineup€was€conducted€in€a€fair€manner€and€that€it€wasÏnot€improperly€suggestive.€€This€assignment€is€overruled.× ƒ› ××  ×ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€œrecords›€of€the€1971€trial€and€the€present€trial€are€replete€with€evidenceÏconcerning€the€lineup,€i.e.,€who€was€in€the€lineup,€how€they€were€dressed,€theÏsimilarity€of€the€participants€in€the€lineup,€what€they€were€asked€to€say,€how€the€lineupÏwas€run€by€the€officers,€what€was€said€to€Mrs.€Bolte€before€and€during€the€lineup,€asÏwell€as€additional€evidence€that€related€to€the€lineup.€€Based€upon€a€reading€of€the€twoÏrecords,€the€facts€have€not€changed.€€Also,€the€law€has€not€changed.€€Judge€WalkerÏcorrectly€decided€the€lineup€issue€based€upon€the€law€applicable€to€the€issue.€€In€otherÏwords,€the€prior€decision€of€this€issue€was€not€"clearly€erroneous.ðð€€Thus,€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€applying€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€to€this€issue.Ìà àThis€Court€parenthetically€notes€that€the€allegations€contained€in€the€genericÏmotion€to€suppress€may€not€have€warranted€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€As€this€Court€saidÏin€òòState€v.€Burtonóó:× ƒœ ××  ×€€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€motion€to€suppress,€like€any€other€motion,€is€required€toÏstate€the€grounds€upon€which€it€is€predicated€withÏparticularity.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€47.€€Thus,€before€an€accusedÏis€entitled€to€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€motion€"must€beÏsufficiently€definite,€specific,€detailed€and€non„conjectural,Ïto€enable€the€court€to€conclude€a€substantial€claim.€.€.€[is]Ïpresented."€€òòState€v.€Davidsonóó,€606€S.W.2d€293,€297€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1980).€€See€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€672€S.W.2d€442,Ï444€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€The€motions€filed€by€theÏdefendants€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€do€not€comport€with€theÏstandards€enunciated€in€Rule€47€and€our€decision€inÏòòDavidsonóó;€and€the€defendants€were€not€entitled,€as€a€matterÏof€law,€to€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€See€òòState€v.€Howellóó,Ísupra.× ƒ ××  ×ÌÌÌÓÓThe€motion€in€this€case€contains€bare€allegations€of€law.€€It€does€not€contain€anyÏfactual€allegations.€€Thus,€it€would€be€impossible€for€a€trial€court€to€review€the€motionÏand€determine€if€a€substantial€issue€existed€and€an€evidentiary€hearing€wasÏwarranted.€€Ìà àThis€Court€understands€and€appreciates€the€time€constraints€and€plight€ofÏappointed€counsel,€particularly€public€defenders€who€face€enormous€case€loads,Ïdifficult€clients,€and€€must€spend€most€days€in€court€defending€their€clients.€ÏNevertheless,€this€Court€cannot€overlook€or€bend€the€rules€to€accommodate€theseÏindividuals.€€Of€course,€a€trial€court€may€conduct€an€evidentiary€hearing€incident€to€aÏmotion€to€suppress€notwithstanding€the€deficiency€in€the€pleadings.€€This€Court€doesÏnot€fault€a€trial€court€that€exercises€its€discretion€in€this€regard.€€However,€everyÏadvocate€should€strive€to€comply€with€the€rules€governing€practice€in€criminal€actions.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìò òà àÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔRIGHT€TO€SPEEDY€TRIALó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àOn€July€23,€1968,€the€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€returned€four€separateÏindictments€against€the€appellant.€€One€indictment€charged€the€appellant€with€theÏkilling€of€John€Robert€Bolte.€€A€second€indictment€charged€the€appellant€with€rapingÏBarbara€Bolte.€€A€third€indictment€charged€the€appellant€with€assaulting€Barbara€BolteÏwith€the€intent€to€commit€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€A€fourth€indictment€charged€theÏappellant€with€assaulting€Dara€Bolte,€the€œBoltesðð›€young€child,€with€intent€to€commitÍmurder€in€the€first€degree.€€The€two€indictments€for€attempt€to€commit€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree€are€now€moot.€€The€state€opted€not€to€reindict€the€appellant€for€these€twoÏoffenses.Ìà àThe€Honorable€Thomas€H.€Shriver,€presently€serving€as€a€judge€of€the€CriminalÏCourt€for€the€Twentieth€Judicial€District,€was€the€District€Attorney€General€when€theÏappellant€was€indicted.€€Judge€Shriver€personally€tried€the€appellant€in€1969€andÏ1971.Ìà àJudge€Shriver€testified€that€the€trial€judge€in€these€two€trials,€HonorableÏRaymond€H.€Leathers,€had€a€policy€that€multiple€indictments€arising€out€of€the€sameÏcriminal€episode€could€not€be€consolidated€for€trial.€€The€District€Attorney€General€wasÏrequired€to€select€one€of€the€indictments€to€prosecute.€€Judge€Shriver€elected€toÏprosecute€the€appellant€for€the€murder€of€John€Robert€Bolte.€€According€to€JudgeÏShriver,€the€defense€wanted€to€try€the€murder€case€by€itself.Ìà àThe€rape€case€was€continued€to€a€later€date.€€On€October€22,€1971,€defenseÏcounsel€filed€a€motion€seeking€the€entry€of€an€order€requiring€the€state€to€give€notice€ofÏits€intent€to€prosecute€the€remaining€cases.€€On€November€12,€1971,€the€state€movedÏto€consolidate€the€three€remaining€cases€for€trial.× ƒ¦ ××  ×€€On€March€13,€1972,€the€trial€courtÏordered€the€state€to€give€defense€counsel€notice€of€its€intent€to€go€to€trial€on€theÏremaining€indictments.€€On€May€26,€1972,€a€motion€to€secure€the€attendance€of€out€ofÏstate€witnesses€was€continued€by€consent.€€On€May€31,€1972,€the€following€minuteÏentry€appears:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThereupon,€counsel€for€the€defendant€appeared€in€openÏcourt€and€stated€he€was€of€the€opinion€that€these€cases€nowÏset€for€July€17,€1972,€should€be€continued€to€an€indefiniteÏdate,€pending€final€disposition€of€case€[sic]€which€has€beenÏtried,€and€by€agreement€of€the€Attorney€General€andÏcounsel€for€the€defendant,€these€cases€are€continued,€withÏall€other€rights€reserved.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€previously€stated,€this€Court€affirmed€the€appellant's€conviction€andÏsentence.× ƒ¨ ××  ×€€However,€the€case€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€hearing€on€theÏappellant's€plea€in€abatement.× ƒª ××  ×€€After€remand,€this€Court€subsequently€affirmed€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€that€African„Americans€were€not€systematically€excludedÏfrom€the€grand€jury€that€indicted€him€or€the€petit€jury€that€convicted€him.× ƒ¬ ××  ×€€TheÏSupreme€Court€denied€the€appellant's€petition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€on€October€11,Ï1977.€€In€summary,€the€murder€conviction€became€final€on€October€11,€1977,€the€dateÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€declined€to€review€the€matter.Ìà àThere€is€no€mention€of€the€rape€case€in€the€minutes€after€May€31,€1972.€€TheÏstate€made€no€effort€to€prosecute€this€case.€€The€appellant€did€not€move€the€trial€courtÏfor€the€entry€of€an€order€granting€him€a€speedy€trial.€€However,€when€the€Sixth€CircuitÏordered€the€state€to€reindict€the€appellant€or€grant€him€his€freedom,€the€state€reindictedÏthe€appellant€for€(a)€the€murder€of€John€Robert€Bolte€and€(b)€the€rape€of€BarbaraÍBolte.× ƒ® ××  ×Ìà àThe€appellant€filed€a€pretrial€motion€to€dismiss€Count€VI€of€the€indictment,€theÏrape€count.€€The€motion€was€predicated€upon€the€failure€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€toÏgive€him€a€speedy€trial,€a€violation€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€trial€court€concludedÏthat€"the€State€did€not€proceed€because€it€believed€its€ninety„nine€(99)€year€sentenceÏon€the€murder€case€was€safe,€and€therefore,€it€lost€interest€in€the€rape€case."€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€the€motion€on€the€ground€the€state€had€indeed€violated€the€appellant'sÏright€to€a€speedy€trial€and€dismissed€Count€VI.€€The€trial€court€considered€the€delayÏfrom€the€date€of€the€original€indictment€until€the€trial€court€ruled€upon€the€motion,€aÏperiod€of€twenty„five€(25)€years.Ìà àThe€trial€court€€granted€the€State€of€Tennessee€permission€to€pursue€anÏinterlocutory€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€9,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€ÏThis€Court€denied€the€application€and€refused€to€entertain€the€appeal.× ƒ° ××  ×€€The€State€ofÏTennessee€subsequently€filed€an€extraordinary€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€10,ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€in€the€Supreme€Court.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏalso€refused€to€entertain€the€appeal.× ƒ² ××  ×ÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔA.Ô€XÔó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€United€States€Constitution€guarantees€the€accused€the€right€to€a€speedyÏtrial.× ƒ´ ××  ×€€The€Sixth€Amendment€provides€in€part€that€ð ð[i]n€all€criminal€prosecutions,€theÏaccused€shall€enjoy€the€right€to€a€speedy€.€.€.€trial.ðð€€This€right€has€been€held€applicableÏto€the€states€through€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.× ƒ¶ ××  ×Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Constitution€also€grants€the€accused€the€right€to€a€speedyÏtrial.× ƒ¸ ××  ×€€An€identical€right€is€provided€by€statute.× ƒº ××  ×€€This€statute€provides€in€part€that€ð ð[i]nÏall€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€is€entitled€to€a€speedy€trial.€.€.€.ðð€€In€addition,€RuleÏ48(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€for€the€dismissal€of€an€indictment,€presentment,Ïinformation,€or€criminal€complaint€ð ð[i]f€there€is€unnecessary€delay€in€presenting€theÏcharge€to€a€grand€jury€against€a€defendant€who€has€been€held€to€answer€to€the€trialÏcourt,€or€if€there€is€unnecessary€delay€in€bringing€a€defendant€to€trial.€.€.€.ððÌà àNeither€the€constitutional€provision€nor€the€statutory€provision€of€the€ruleÏdelineates€the€period€of€time€in€which€the€accused€must€either€be€brought€to€trial€orÍreleased.× ƒ» ××  ×€€Nor€do€these€provisions€define€what€is€meant€by€the€phrase€"speedy€trial."ÏIn€òòArrowsmith€v.€Stateóó,€the€Supreme€Court€defined€the€term€ð ðspeedy€trialðð€in€theÏfollowing€manner:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àA€speedy€trial€.€.€.€means€a€trial€as€soon€after€indictment€asÏthe€prosecution€can,€with€reasonable€diligence,€prepare€forÏit,€without€needless,€vexatious,€or€oppressive€delay,€havingÏin€view,€however,€its€regulation€and€conduct€by€fixed€rulesÏof€law,€any€delay€created€by€the€operation€of€which€rulesÏdoes€not€in€legal€contemplation€work€prejudice€to€theÏconstitutional€right€of€the€accused.× ƒ¼ ××  ×ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òÔ€¼ÔœB.Ô€XÔó ó›ÌÓ  Óà àð ðThe€right€to€a€speedy€trial€is€generally€different€from€any€of€the€other€rightsÏenshrined€in€the€Constitution€for€the€protection€of€the€accusedðð× ƒ½ ××  ×€because€both€societyÏand€the€accused€have€an€interest€in€ensuring€that€the€accused€is€afforded€a€speedyÏtrial.× ƒ¾ ××  ×€€The€societal€interest€is€said€to€exist€ð ðseparate€from,€and€at€times€in€oppositionÏto,€the€interests€of€the€accused.ðð× ƒ¿ ××  ×Ìà àThe€societal€interest€in€the€protection€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€a€speedyÏtrial€was€described€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó:ÌÓÓÌœà8 àà8 àThe›€inability€of€courts€to€provide€a€prompt€trial€hasÏcontributed€to€a€large€backlog€of€cases€in€urban€courtsÏwhich,€among€other€things,€enables€defendants€to€negotiateÏmore€effectively€for€pleas€of€guilty€to€lesser€offenses€andÏotherwise€manipulate€the€system.€€In€addition,€personsÏreleased€on€bond€for€lengthy€periods€awaiting€trial€have€anÏopportunity€to€commit€other€crimes.€.€.€.€€Moreover,€theÏlonger€an€accused€is€free€awaiting€trial,€the€more€temptingÏbecomes€his€opportunity€to€jump€bail€and€escape.€€Finally,Ïdelay€between€arrest€and€punishment€may€have€aÏdetrimental€effect€on€rehabilitation.× ƒÀ ××  ×ÌÌÌÓÓThe€accusedððs€interest€in€obtaining€a€speedy€trial€œis›€threefold.€€First,€a€prompt€trialÏprevents€undue€and€oppressive€incarceration€prior€to€a€trier€of€factððs€determination€ofÏthe€accusedððs€guilt.€€Second,€a€prompt€trial€also€minimizes€the€anxiety€and€concernÏwhich€accompanies€a€public€accusation.€€Third,€a€prompt€trial€limits€the€possibility€thatÏlong€delays€will€impair€the€accusedððs€ability€to€defend€himself€or€herself.× ƒÄ ××  ×Ì€€€ÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔC.ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€a€speedy€trial€attaches€when€a€person€has€beenÏformally€ð ðaccusedðð€of€a€criminal€offense.œ× ƒÆ ××  ×›€€€A€person€becomes€an€ð ðaccusedðð€when€(a)Ían€arrest€warrant€is€issued,× ƒÊ ××  ×€(b)€the€person€has€been€arrested€and€held€to€answer€aÏcriminal€charge,× ƒË ××  ×€or€(c)€the€grand€jury€has€returned€an€indictment€or€presentmentÏcharging€the€person€with€the€commission€of€a€crime.× ƒÌ ××  ×€€This€rule€applies€with€equalÏforce€to€claims€made€under€color€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.× ƒÍ ××  ×€€In€òòBoswell€v.ÏStateóó,× ƒÎ ××  ×€this€Court€said:ÌÓÓÌœà8 àà8 à[W]e›€hold€to€invoke€an€individualððs€right€to€a€speedy€trialÏunder€the€provisions€of€Article€I,€Section€9,€of€theÏConstitution€of€this€state,€there€must€be€either€a€formalÏindictment€or€presentment,€or€the€actual€restraints€imposedÏby€arrest€and€holding€to€answer€a€criminal€charge.× ƒÐ ××  ×ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€this€case,€the€appellant€was€an€ð ðaccusedðð€since€he€was€indicted€by€theÏDavidson€County€Grand€Jury€on€July€23,€1968.€€Thus,€he€is€entitled€to€the€protection€ofÏthe€speedy€trial€provisions€contained€in€both€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÍœConstitutions.›ÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔD.ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àWhen€the€accused€seeks€the€dismissal€of€a€prosecution€based€upon€the€denialÏof€the€constitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial,€the€accused€must€establish€a€period€of€delayÏthat€is€"presumptively€prejudicial."× ƒÓ ××  ×€€€This€triggers€the€balancing€test€used€to€determineÏthe€merits€of€a€speedy€trial€issue.× ƒ× ××  ×€€This€"balancing€test"€is€applied€to€claims€madeÏpursuant€to€the€Sixth€Amendment,€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€andÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„101.× ƒØ ××  ×Ì€€à àThere€are€four€factors€that€must€be€balanced.€€The€factors€are€(1)€the€length€ofÏthe€delay,€(2)€the€reasons€for€the€delay,€(3)€the€accused's€assertion€of€the€right€toÏspeedy€trial,€and€(4)€the€prejudice€which€enures€to€the€accused.ÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔE.ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àThe€first€determination€this€Court€must€make€is€when€the€delay€began€and€whenÏthe€delay€ended.€€This€Court€finds€that€the€delay€began€when€the€appellant€wasÍindicted€on€July€23,€1968.× ƒÙ ××  ×€€It€ended€on€the€day€that€the€trial€court€dismissed€this€countÏof€the€indictment,€April€2,€1993.€€Thus,€the€period€of€delay€is€twenty„four€(24)€years,Ïeight€(8)€months,€and€five€(5)€days.€€During€this€entire€period€of€time€the€appellant€wasÏconfined€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€could€haveÏrequired€the€appellant€to€be€present€and€stand€trial€at€any€time€the€State€of€TennesseeÏelected.€€The€length€of€this€delay€was€sufficient€to€warrant€review€on€the€merits€andÏapply€the€balancing€test.Ìà àOn€July€17,€1972,€counsel€for€the€appellant€and€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÏagreed€that€the€rape€case€and€two€attempts€to€commit€murder€in€the€first€degree€wouldÏbe€continued€indefinitely€until€the€appellate€courts€had€ruled€upon€the€merits€of€theÏappeal€in€the€murder€case.€€The€initial€state€appellate€process€was€concluded€onÏNovember€10,€1975.€€The€issue€on€remand€was€whether€there€had€been€a€systematicÏexclusion€of€African„Americans€from€the€grand€jury€that€indicted€the€appellant€and€theÏpetit€jury€that€convicted€him.€€Assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€the€State€of€Tennessee€isÏentitled€to€have€the€period€of€delay€shortened€for€this€length€of€time,€there€still€would€beÏa€delay€of€œeighteen€(18)›€years,€œfour€(4)›€months,€and€œtwenty„three€(23)›€days.Ìà àJudge€Shriver€thought€at€one€time€he€could€not€go€to€trial€because€the€exhibitsÏwere€lost.€€The€search€made€was€at€best€a€simple€genuflection€in€that€direction.€€If€heÏhad€made€a€thorough€search,€he€would€have€found€the€exhibits€in€the€property€roomÏlocated€in€the€Supreme€Court€Building.€€This€Court€cannot€give€much€weight€to€theÍcontention€that€this€period€of€delay€should€be€afforded€the€state.€Ìà àThere€appears€to€be€no€valid€reason€why€all€of€the€indictments€were€notÏconsolidated€and€tried€together€in€the€first€trial.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€offered€proofÏthat€the€trial€court€would€not€try€multiple€cases.€€The€state€was€required€to€select€one€ofÏthe€cases€and€try€that€case.€€However,€the€record€refutes€this€proof.€€There€is€a€minuteÏentry€which€states€that€the€State€of€Tennessee€moved€to€consolidate€the€threeÏremaining€indictments.€€The€trial€court€noted€this€discrepancy€in€its€findings€of€fact.€€ItÏappears€that€the€trial€court€did€not€believe€this€proof€to€be€credible.€€This€Court€agrees.€ÏMoreover,€the€testimony€and€the€minute€entry€offset€and€cancel€each€other€„„€meaningÏthere€is€no€evidence€as€to€why€the€murder€case€was€tried€separately.Ìà àThe€more€plausible€explanation€has€to€do€with€the€punishment.€€When€this€caseÏwas€tried,€the€State€of€Tennessee€could€œhave€elected›€to€seek€a€death€sentence€forÏmurder€in€the€first€degree.€€The€state€logically€thought€that€a€jury€would€render€a€verdictÏof€death.€€If€the€jury€rendered€a€death€sentence,€any€other€sentences€imposed€in€theÏremaining€cases€would€be€meaningless.€€In€other€words,€the€state€did€not€intend€toÏprosecute€the€three€remaining€indictments.€€Thus,€the€state€tried€the€murder€case.€ÏWhen€the€jury€returned€a€sentence€of€ninety„nine€years,€the€state€must€have€beenÏsatisfied€with€the€sentence€because€no€effort€was€made€to€prosecute€the€remainingÏcases.€€€In€summary,€there€really€is€no€valid€reason€for€the€delay.Ìà àThe€record€establishes€that€the€appellant€did€not€assert€his€right€to€a€speedy€trialÏuntil€December€1,€1992,€the€date€the€motion€to€dismiss€Count€VI€was€filed.€€However,Ïthis€factor€standing€alone,€does€not€preclude€the€dismissal€of€a€prosecution€whenÍdelay€is€quite€lengthy.œ× ƒá ××  ×›€€In€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àWe€reject€.€.€.€the€rule€that€a€defendant€who€fails€to€demandÏa€speedy€trial€forever€waives€his€right.€.€.€.€€We€think€theÏbetter€rule€is€that€the€defendant's€assertion€of€or€failure€toÏassert€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€is€one€of€the€factors€to€beÏconsidered€in€an€inquiry€into€the€deprivation€of€the€right.€ÏSuch€a€formulation€avoids€the€rigidities€of€the€demand„waiver€rule€and€the€resulting€possible€unfairness€in€itsÏapplication.× ƒã ××  ×ÌÌÌÓÓAlthough€an€accused€"has€no€duty€to€bring€himself€to€trial,"× ƒå ××  ×€€the€assertion€or€lack€ofÏassertion€of€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial€is€to€be€balanced€with€the€remaining€threeÏfactors.Ìà àThe€appellant€contends€that€he€was€not€required€to€establish€demonstrableÏprejudice€because€the€prejudice€is€presumed€due€to€the€length€of€the€delay.€€In€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Doggettóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€said:€€"[C]onsideration€ofÏprejudice€is€not€limited€to€the€specifically€demonstrable,€and€.€.€.€affirmative€proof€ofÏparticularized€prejudice€is€not€essential€to€every€speedy€trial€claim."× ƒç ××  ×€€In€òòDoggettóó,€theÏaccused€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€reason€of€the€delay,€which€wasÏapproximately€six€and€one„half€years.€€Nevertheless,€the€Supreme€Court€granted€theÏaccused€relief.€€In€ruling,€the€Court€said€when€the€delay€is€ð ðsix€times€as€long€as€thatÍgenerally€sufficient€to€trigger€judicial€review.€.€.,€and€when€the€presumption€ofÏprejudice,€albeit€unspecified,€is€neither€extenuated,€.€.€.€nor€persuasively€rebutted,€theÏdefendant€is€entitled€to€relief."× ƒè ××  ×Ìà àIn€this€case,€there€were€witnesses€who€had€died,€others€who€had€moved€awayÏfrom€the€area,€and€one€who€could€not€testify€because€she€was€suffering€fromÏAlzheimerððs€disease€and€progressive€dementia.€€If€this€trial€had€been€timely,€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses€would€have€been€memorialized€by€the€court€reporter.€€In€theÏevent€the€appellant€was€convicted,€the€court€reporter€would€have€transcribed€her€notesÏand€had€a€transcript€prepared,€approved,€and€filed€in€this€Court.€€If€it€becameÏnecessary€to€retry€this€case€with€the€murder€case,€the€appellant€would€have€the€benefitÏof€the€transcript.€€As€in€the€murder€case,€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€who€had€diedÏor€could€not€be€found€could€be€read€to€the€jury.× ƒé ××  ×€€In€summary,€the€appellant€lost€thisÏvaluable€right€when€the€state€opted€not€to€try€him€in€the€rape€case.ÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔÌF.Ô€XÔó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€Court€is€of€the€opinion€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€findingÏthat€the€appellant's€right€to€a€speedy€trial€had€been€violated.€€It€must€be€rememberedÍthat€the€state€is€the€party€charged€with€seeing€that€the€appellant€receives€a€speedyÏtrial.× ƒê ××  ×€€Moreover,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€consistent€with€the€decisions€of€ourÏSupreme€Court€and€this€Court.Ìà àIn€òòArrowsmith€v.€Stateóó,× ƒë ××  ×€eleven€separate€indictments€were€returned€against€theÏaccused.€€He€was€tried€for€one€count€of€forgery,€convicted,€and€sentenced€toÏconfinement€for€three€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€No€effort€was€made€toÏprosecute€the€appellant€on€the€remaining€ten€indictments€while€he€was€confined.€ÏWhen€he€had€served€his€sentence,€the€appellant€was€returned€to€face€the€remainingÏten€indictments.€€He€was€convicted€of€another€count€of€forgery€and€sentencedÏaccordingly.€€Approximately€three€years€expired€between€the€trials.€€The€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€the€accused's€right€to€a€speedy€trial€had€been€violated.Ìà àIn€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,× ƒì ××  ×€a€case€factually€similar€to€this€case,€the€appellant€wasÏindicted€for€the€commission€of€two€homicides.€€He€was€tried€on€one€case€andÏconvicted.€€He€apparently€spent€twelve€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€followingÏthis€conviction.€€The€case€does€not€state€what€occurred€with€the€other€indictment.€ÏHowever,€the€appellant€was€reindicted€for€this€same€offense€approximately€fourteenÏyears€later.€€He€was€tried€and€convicted€of€involuntary€manslaughter€based€on€the€newÏindictment.€€The€state,€as€in€this€case,€argued€that€the€time€for€determining€the€right€to€aÏspeedy€trial€began€to€run€after€the€return€of€the€second€indictment.€€The€SupremeÍCourt€rejected€this€argument€and€held€that€the€accused€had€been€denied€his€right€to€aÏspeedy€trial.€€In€ruling,€the€court€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àTo€sustain€this€contention€of€the€state€would€be€to€observeÏthe€form€of€the€constitutional€direction€and€deny€itsÏsubstance.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€second€indictment€was€a€continuation€of€theÏprosecution€begun€by€the€first.€.€.€.€€Both€indictmentsÏcharged€the€same€offense.€€The€constitutional€right€whichÏhad€accrued€as€a€bar€to€the€further€prosecution€of€the€firstÏindictment€would€be€defeated€by€evasion,€if€the€state€couldÏavoid€the€consequences€of€its€delay€by€the€simpleÏexpedient€of€abandoning€the€first€and€presenting€a€newÏindictment.€.€.€.€€Here,€the€prosecution€was€begun€when€theÏfirst€indictment€was€returned,€and€the€statute€of€limitationÏwas€tolled€by€that€indictment.€.€.€.ÌÌÓ ` œXÓà8 àà8 àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€will€be€reversed,€and€theÏplaintiff€in€error€discharged.× ƒí ××  ×ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€òòState€v.€Wallaceóó,× ƒî ××  ×€the€accused€was€indicted€in€Humphreys€County€in€AugustÏof€1977.€€He€was€confined€to€the€penitentiary€for€an€unrelated€conviction€in€GilesÏCounty.€€He€wrote€his€attorney€in€the€Humphreys€County€case€approximately€a€monthÏafter€arriving€at€the€penitentiary.€€He€asked€for€a€trial€in€the€Humphreys€County€case€asÏsoon€as€possible.€€There€was€no€written€request€or€formal€detainer€placed€that€barredÏthe€appellant's€release€from€the€penitentiary.€€The€appellant€was€subsequentlyÏreleased€on€parole€and€permitted€to€return€to€his€home€in€Chicago,€Illinois.€€When€heÏsought€a€special€parolee's€permit€to€visit€his€grandmother€out„of„state,€he€was€notifiedÍof€the€pending€Humphreys€County€case.€€He€waived€extradition€and€returned€toÏTennessee€in€September€of€1979.€€This€Court€held€that€the€accused€was€denied€theÏright€to€a€speedy€trial€due€to€the€twenty„six€month€delay€between€indictment€and€trial.€€€€€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔRELIABILITY€OF€CONVICTIONÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€appellant€contends€that€his€conviction€is€not€reliable€due€to€the€passage€ofÏtime,€dispersion€of€witnesses,€erosion€of€memories,€and€the€loss€of€defense€evidence.€ÏHe€argues€that€the€state€lost€or€destroyed€defense€trial€exhibits;€and€the€state€failed€toÏdisclose€exculpatory€evidence.€€The€state€disagrees.€€The€state€argues€that€theÏappellant€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€missing€evidence€was€"exculpatory"€in€nature.€ÏFurthermore,€the€fact€that€the€items€were€listed€as€defense€exhibits€does€not€equate€toÏbad€faith€in€losing€or€destroying€the€exhibits.ÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔA.ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àIn€this€case,€several€oversized€exhibits€were€maintained€by€the€clerk€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€These€exhibits€included€a€blue€rug,€footprints€on€the€flooring€taken€from€theÏvictim's€residence,€high€top€shoes,€œ›house€shoesœ,›€a€box€of€checks,€and€a€chart€settingÏforth€points€of€reference€to€Mrs.€Bolte's€cross„examination.€€All€of€these€exhibits€wereÏintroduced€by€the€appellant€at€his€1971€trial.Ìà àCustomarily,€large€or€oversized€exhibits€are€not€transmitted€to€the€appellateÏcourt.€€These€exhibits€are€retained€by€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court.€€If€the€appellate€courtÏwishes€to€examine€one€or€all€of€these€exhibits,€it€may€do€so€by€ordering€the€clerk€toÏtransmit€the€exhibits€to€the€clerk€of€the€appellate€court.Ìà àIt€appears€that€a€new€clerk€of€court€was€elected€between€1971€and€1992.€€TheÏclerk€decided€to€purge€several€exhibits€being€maintained€by€the€clerk's€office.€€TheÏonly€explanation€for€the€loss€of€the€exhibits€is€that€the€exhibits€were€part€of€theÏevidence€being€purged,€and€the€exhibits€were€either€discarded€or€destroyed.€€There€isÏnothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€the€clerk€conferred€with€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral's€office€before€purging€these€exhibits€or€any€other€exhibits€that€were€eitherÏdiscarded€or€destroyed.€€To€the€contrary,€when€the€district€attorney€general€went€inÏsearch€of€the€exhibits,€he€was€puzzled€as€to€why€he€could€not€find€them.€€Because€theÏstate€did€not€have€the€lost€items€in€its€possession€or€cause€the€loss€of€the€items,€inÏgood€or€bad€faith,€there€is€no€due€process€violation€under€òòArizona€v.€Youngbloodóó.× ƒï ××  ×Ìà àFurthermore,€this€Court€has€examined€the€transcript€of€the€1971€trial,€whichÏconsists€of€six€full€boxes,€to€determine€the€relevance€and€importance€of€each€missingÏexhibit.€€This€Court€has€also€examined€the€brief€filed€by€the€appellant€in€the€1971€case.€ÏThe€brief€consists€of€280€pages.€€Based€upon€this€thorough€study,€these€exhibits€wereÏmarginally€relevant,€and€of€little,€if€any,€exculpatory€value€to€the€appellant.€€TheseÏexhibits€are€not€mentioned€with€prominence€in€the€forceful€argument€of€innocenceÏcontained€in€the€appellantððs€brief€in€the€1971€case.Ìà àThe€blue€rug× ƒð ××  ×€was€introduced€during€defense€counselððs€cross„examination€ofÏMrs.€Bolte.€€She€testified€that€the€rug€was€at€the€end€of€the€bed€in€their€bedroom.Ìà àThe€piece€of€wood× ƒó ××  ×€was€actually€a€section€of€flooring€that€was€removed€fromÏthe€œBoltesðð›€residence€by€police€officers.€€The€section€of€flooring€had€a€bloody€footprintÏon€it.€€This€too€was€introduced€by€defense€counsel€during€Mrs.€Bolteððs€cross„examination.€€This€exhibit€was€examined€by€a€Tennessee€Bureau€of€InvestigationÏagent,€Harold€T.€Wilatch.€€Agent€Wilatch€testified€that€the€footprint€on€the€section€ofÏflooring€and€the€known€footprint€of€the€appellant€were€the€same€ð ðoverallðð€size,€but€heÏcould€not€make€a€positive€identification€because€the€person€making€the€footprint€on€theÏsection€of€flooring€was€wearing€a€sock.€€Thus,€the€ridges€were€not€shown.€€TheÏappellant€did€have€available€to€him€a€photograph€that€had€been€taken€of€the€footprintÏbefore€the€section€of€the€flooring€was€removed.Ìà àThe€pair€of€shoes× ƒô ××  ×€the€appellant€was€wearing€when€he€was€arrested€wasÏintroduced€during€the€cross„examination€of€Officer€George€Curry€of€the€MetropolitanÏPolice€Department.€€Apparently,€defense€counsel€wanted€to€establish€that€theÏappellant€was€wearing€the€shoes€during€the€ensuing€lineup.€€Officer€Curry€stated€thatÏhe€did€not€know€whether€the€appellant€did€or€did€not€wear€the€shoes€during€the€lineup.Ìà àA€pair€of€slippers× ƒõ ××  ×€removed€from€the€œBoltesðð›€residence€was€introduced€duringÏthe€cross„examination€of€Lieutenant€Hill€of€the€Metropolitan€Police€Department.€ÏLieutenant€Hill€testified€that€the€slippers€had€been€removed€from€the€Bolte€residence,Ïbut€he€did€not€know€where€they€were€located€inside€the€residence€when€removed€byÍthe€police.Ìà àA€box€of€checks× ƒ÷ ××  ×€was€introduced€during€the€cross„examination€of€AgentÏWilatch.€€These€checks€were€examined€for€fingerprints.€€€Agent€Wilatch€testified€that€theÏappellantððs€fingerprints€were€not€found€on€any€of€the€checks.Ìà àThe€appellant€has€failed€to€make€a€compelling€case€that€the€absence€of€theseÏexhibits€impaired€defense€counselððs€ability€to€prepare€for€trial€or€present€a€defenseÏduring€the€1993€trial.€€He€simply€argues€that€the€defense€has€been€deprived€of€havingÏthese€exhibits€analyzed€with€modern€technology.€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€illustrateÏhow€or€what€modern€technology€would€have€assisted€in€establishing€his€innocence.€€ÏIn€summary,€the€conjecture€and€surmise€set€forth€in€the€appellantððs€brief€is€nothingÏmore€than€wishful€thinking.€€This€Court€cannot€engage€in€such€speculation,€particularlyÏin€view€of€the€failure€to€demonstrate€how€these€items€would€have€helped€the€defense.Ìà àThis€sub„issue€is€overruled.€€Ìà à€€€€ÌÓ  Óà àò òÔ€¼ÔB.Ô€XÔó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€state€withheld€exculpatory€information.€€TheÏappellant€points€to€the€police€report€of€Officer€Frank€E.€Wade€and€to€some€audio€tapeÏrecordings.€€€Officer€Wadeððs€report€contained€a€neighbor's€description€of€an€African„American€who€was€seen€in€the€neighborhood€about€the€time€the€burglary„murder„rapeÏoccurred.€€The€report€also€revealed€that€another€neighbor€had€told€Officer€Wade€thatÏJohn€Robert€Bolte€told€her€that€he€had€tape€recorded€telephone€conversationsÍbetween€Mrs.€Bolte€and€her€paramour,€Richard€Hartman.€€When€Mrs.€Bolte€andÏHartman€severed€their€relationship,€Hartman€kept€calling.€€The€victim€had€theÏtelephone€number€changed.€€The€police€removed€numerous€audio€tapes€from€theÏBolte€residence€during€the€ensuing€investigation.€€No€evidence€was€introduced€as€toÏwhat€was€recorded€on€the€tapes€that€were€removed€from€the€house.€€Moreover,€Mr.ÏBolteððs€brother€testified€that€he€recovered€several€audio€tapes€that€belonged€to€theÏvictim.Ìà àThe€appellant€argues€that€he€has€made€repeated€requests€for€exculpatoryÏinformation,€but€the€state€never€furnished€him€with€a€copy€of€Officer€Wadeððs€report€orÏthe€information€contained€in€the€report.€€The€statement€was€furnished€to€the€appellantÏafter€Officer€Wade€completed€his€direct€testimony€during€the€1993€trial.× ƒø ××  ×Ìà àThe€prosecutor€only€has€a€constitutional€duty€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€toÏdisclose€evidence€to€the€defense€when€the€information€is€material€to€the€defense,€i.e.,Ïwhen€it€creates€a€reasonable€probability,€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÏoutcome,€that€its€disclosure€would€change€the€result€of€the€proceeding.œ× ƒù ××  ×›Ìà àIn€the€recent€case€of€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,× ƒú ××  ×€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏexplained€more€fully€its€use€of€the€term€ð ðreasonable€probabilityðð€in€the€òòBagleyóóÏstandard:ÌÓÓòòÌà8 àà8 àBagleyððsóó€touchstone€of€materiality€is€a€ð ðreasonableÏprobabilityðð€of€a€different€result,€and€the€adjective€isÏimportant.€€The€question€is€not€whether€the€defendant€wouldÏmore€likely€than€not€have€received€a€different€verdict€withÏthe€evidence,€but€whether€in€its€absence€he€received€a€fairÏtrial,€understood€as€a€trial€resulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€ofÏconfidence.€€A€ð ðreasonable€probabilityðð€of€a€different€resultÏis€accordingly€shown€when€the€Governmentððs€evidentiaryÏsuppression€ð ðundermines€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€theÏtrial.ðð× ƒû ××  ×ÌÌÓÓÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼Ô(1)ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àOfficer€Wade's€report€stated€that€ð ðMs.€Catherine€Stewart€.€.€.€stopped€me€as€IÏwas€leaving€the€murder€house€and€said€she€was€going€home€this€morning€and€passedÏthe€murder€house€at€about€3:40€a.m.€€And€a€MC€[male,€colored]€was€walking€down€theÏroad€about€the€vicinity€of€the€house€on€Edmundson€Pike.€€The€only€description€is€[a]ÏMC€stocky,€short,€dark€and€had€a€lot€of€kinky€hair.ðð€€€Ms.€Stewart€was€not€available€toÏtestify€at€the€1993€trial.€€During€the€interval€between€the€1971€trial€and€the€1993€trial,ÏœMs.›€Stewart€became€afflicted€with€Alzheimerððs€disease€and€progressive€dementia.€€HerÏphysician€stated€the€condition€would€render€any€testimony€she€may€give€invalid€orÏunreliable.€€The€parties€entered€into€the€following€stipulation,€which€was€read€to€theÏjury:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àOn€June€15,€1968,€Mrs.€Catherine€Stewart€who€lived€atÏ5045€Edmonson€Pike,€told€Officer€Frank€Wade€that€as€sheÏwas€passing€the€Bolte€home€at€3:40€a.m.€on€Saturday,€JuneÏ15,€she€observed€a€black€male€walking€down€the€road.€€SheÍdescribed€the€male€black€as€being€short,€stocky,€and€dark.€ÏShe€said€the€man€had€a€lot€of€kinky€hair.€€She€had€noÏfurther€police€contact.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAppellantððs€claim€of€a€òòBradyóó€violation€must€fail€for€two€reasons.€€First,€the€stateÏdid€not€suppress€this€evidence.€€The€report€containing€this€information€was€furnished€toÏdefense€counsel€pursuant€to€Rule€26.2,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€immediately€after€WadeððsÏdirect€examination.€€This€disclosure€did€not€deny€the€defense€its€effective€use€at€trial.€ÏMoreover,€the€appellant€was€able€to€relate€this€information€to€the€jury€by€stipulation.€ÏThis€may€have€been€the€best€way€to€present€the€information€from€the€defenseÏprospective.€€The€state€could€not€cross„examine€the€stipulation.€€Second,€the€evidenceÏwas€not€material€in€the€context€of€this€case.€The€mere€presence€of€another€African„American€in€the€neighborhood€or€in€close€proximity€of€the€Bolte€residence€that€morningÏdoes€not€prove€or€disprove€that€the€appellant€was€the€perpetrator€of€this€crime.€€Ms.ÏStewart€did€not€see€this€man€leaving€the€Bolte€residence€„„€he€was€simply€walkingÏdown€the€street.Ìà àIt€must€be€remembered€that€the€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence€pointsÏunerringly€to€the€appellant€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€murder.€€Mrs.€Bolte€made€a€lineupÏidentification€of€the€appellant.€€This€identification€was€positive€„„€she€did€not€hesitate€inÏmaking€the€identification.€€She€made€a€courtroom€identification€of€the€appellant€in€bothÏthe€1971€and€1993€trials.€€The€victimððs€wrist€watch€was€traced€to€the€appellant.€€HeÏpossessed€coins€that€were€part€of€the€coin€collection€taken€from€the€residence.€€HisÏown€witness€stated€that€it€was€difficult€to€find€buffalo€nickels€with€readable€dates.€€TheÏeleven€buffalo€nickels€he€possessed€when€he€was€arrested€had€legible€dates.€€He€alsoÍhad€two€dimes€that€were€rare€and€were€the€type€of€coins€that€would€be€found€inÏpossession€of€a€coin€collector.Ìà àIn€summary,€the€state€did€not€suppress€the€evidence,€and€this€evidence€was€notÏmaterial.€€This€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€it€is€not€reasonably€probable€that€if€thisÏevidence€was€revealed€earlier,€the€results€of€the€trial€would€have€been€any€different.× ƒü ××  ×ÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼Ô(2)ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àOfficer€Wadeððs€report€reflected€that€the€police€ð ðfound€a€great€deal€of€tapes€andÏthey€were€brought€to€headquarters€for€further€investigation.ðð€€However,€Officer€WadeÏtestified€that€he€never€saw€the€tapes€or€listened€to€them.€€Neither€the€state€nor€theÏdefense€produced€a€witness€who€knew€what€was€actually€on€the€tapes.€€The€witnessÏwho€told€police€that€the€victim,€John€Robert€Bolte,€had€told€her€that€he€recorded€theÏtelephone€conversations€between€Mrs.€Bolte€and€Hartman,€was€not€available€to€testify.€ÏShe€was€out€of€town€during€the€trial.€€What€Bolte€told€this€witness€was€hearsay.€€UnlessÏthe€appellant€can€fit€this€hearsay€into€one€of€the€exceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule,€itÏwould€not€be€admissible.€€Ìà àThe€appellantððs€complaint€is€that€ð ð[w]ithholding€these€tapes€deprived€theÏdefense€from€investigating€the€animus€existing€between€Richard€Hartman€and€theÏBolteððs€in€the€days€immediately€preceeding€the€murder.ðð€€However,€defense€counselÏwas€permitted€to€cross„examine€Mrs.€Bolte€about€her€affair€with€Hartman.€€She€testifiedÏabout€every€graphic€detail€involved€in€this€affair.€€It€included€buying€him€an€automobile,Íliving€with€him€in€a€trailer€with€two€other€couples,€and€Hartman€being€in€the€BolteÏresidence€while€the€victim€was€at€work.€€Hartmanððs€testimony€was€also€received€intoÏevidence.€€He€too€was€grilled€about€every€minute€incident€that€occurred€during€theÏaffair.€€In€short,€the€jury€heard€every€thing€that€there€was€to€know€about€this€affair.€Ìà àThis€claim€of€the€appellant€must€fail€for€two€reasons.€€First,€there€is€nothing€in€theÏrecord€to€establish€that€the€content€of€audio€tapes€contained€information€that€wouldÏhave€been€favorable€to€the€appellant.€€It€is€unknown€what€was€on€these€particularÏtapes.€€Second,€€assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€the€tapes€did€contain€these€telephoneÏconversations,€the€content€of€the€tapes€would€not€have€been€material€in€the€context€ofÏthis€case.Ìà àAny€defense€attorney€worth€his€salt€would€be€interested€in€listening€to€the€tapesÏfor€the€purpose€of€determining€what,€if€anything,€was€contained€on€the€tapes.€ÏHowever,€the€appellantððs€position€regarding€the€tapes€is€predicated€upon€conjectureÏand€surmise€„„€what€òòmightóó€have€been€on€the€tapes€as€opposed€to€what€actually€was€onÏthe€tapes.€€This€Court€cannot€engage€in€such€conjecture€and€surmise€and€find€aÏviolation€of€the€accusedððs€right€to€exculpatory€evidence.€€In€short,€the€appellant€has€notÏestablished€the€necessary€prerequisites€that€warrant€relief€from€his€conviction.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà à€€€€€ÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÔà àThe€appellantððs€general€argument€that€due€process€was€violated€due€to€theÏpassage€of€time,€dispersion€of€witnesses,€erosion€of€memories,€and€the€loss€of€defenseÏevidence€is€similarly€without€merit.€€Had€the€appellant€faced€his€first€trial€for€the€1968Ímurder€in€August€of€1993,€the€argument€might€have€more€weight.€€However,€becauseÏhe€had€prior€trials€and€hearings€in€which€to€develop€evidence€which€could€be€usedÏagain€in€the€1993€trial,€due€process€was€not€violated.€€The€evidence€admitted€at€theÏ1971€trial€could€be€introduced€in€the€1993€trial.€€It€should€be€noted€that€there€is€noÏstatute€of€limitations€for€prosecuting€a€charge€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€state€was€at€aÏdecided€disadvantage€because€it€was€required€to€establish€the€appellantððs€guiltÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€appellant€has€made€no€showing€of€prejudice,€otherÏthan€mere€conclusions€as€to€possibilities€due€to€the€passage€of€time.Ìà àThis€issue€has€no€merit.€Ìà àÌÓ  ÓÔ€¼Ôò òœÇEXHIBITION›€OF€SCARSó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÔà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€permitting€Mrs.€Bolte€to€exhibit€the€scars€she€sustained€at€the€hands€ofÏthe€appellant.€€He€argues€that€the€residual€scars€were€not€relevant€and€that€anyÏprobative€value€was€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ìà àAs€the€state€notes,€the€appellant€was€charged€with€felony€murder€in€the€firstÏcount€of€the€indictment.€€The€felony€was€the€rape€of€Mrs.€Bolte.€€Thus,€the€state€wasÏrequired€to€prove€that€(1)€the€appellant€murdered€Mr.€Bolte€and€(2)€the€felony,€i.e.,Ïrape.€€The€residual€scarring€was€highly€relevant€for€establishing€that€the€appellantÏraped€Mrs.€Bolte.€€She€testified€that€he€stabbed€her€with€a€knife,€apparently€beat€her,Ïand€struck€her€with€the€axe.€€The€state€was€entitled€to€show€the€evidence€of€theÏinjuries,€the€residual€scars.Ìà àThis€evidence€was€clearly€relevant€to€establish€that€the€rape€was€committed€withÏforce€and€against€Mrs.€Bolteððs€will.€€These€were€essential€elements€of€the€crime€ofÏrape.€€The€extent€of€her€injuries€was€also€relevant€to€Mrs.€Bolteððs€credibility€because€itÏprovides€a€motive€to€correctly€identify€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.€€If€Hartman€hadÏcommitted€the€crime,€as€suggested€by€the€defense,€Mrs.€Bolteððs€motive€for€protectingÏthe€man€who€actually€inflicted€the€severe€wounds€by€accusing€a€man€of€a€different€raceÏwould€be€severely€diminished.Ìà àAlso,€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403€that€the€probative€value€didÏnot€substantially€outweigh€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€was€not€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€The€record€does€not€indicate€how€these€scars€appeared€at€the€time€of€theÏobjection.€€Therefore,€this€œCourt›€cannot€determine€the€extent€of€the€danger€of€unfairÍprejudice€that€the€trial€court€weighed€in€ruling€on€the€motion.€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€885€S.W.2dÏ357,€361€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€short,€there€is€noÏevidence€in€the€record€which€indicates€any€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€In€fact,€anyÏunfair€prejudice€would€be€minimal€in€light€of€the€fact€that€no€objection€was€made€to€theÏdetailed€testimony€by€Mrs.€Bolte€as€to€the€injuries€she€suffered€at€the€hands€of€theÏappellant.Ìà àThe€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔSENTENCINGó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant€was€tried€for€three€counts€of€felony€murder€and€one€count€ofÏpremeditated€murder.€€Each€count€charged€the€appellant€with€killing€John€Robert€BolteÏon€the€15th€day€of€June,€1968.€€The€trial€court€charged€the€jury€on€the€elements€of€eachÏoffense.€€The€jury€was€also€instructed:ÌÓÓÌœà8 àà8 àIf›€you€find€that€the€State€has€proven€the€defendant€guilty€byÏproof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€one€of€the€countsÏcharging€first€degree€murder,€you€shall€mark€the€verdictÏform€as€to€the€count€on€which€all€twelve€of€you€agree,€andÏreport€your€verdict€as€follows,€quote:ÌÌœà8 àà8 à›à8 àWe,€the€jury,€find€the€defendant€guilty€ofÏmurder€in€the€first€degree€and€set€his€sentenceÏat,€blank,€with€you,€the€jury,€filing€in€the€blankÏby€setting€his€sentence€at€life€or€a€specific€termÏof€years€of€from€twenty€years€to€life.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€jury€returned€its€verdict€on€August€19,€1993.€€The€verdict€form€indicated€theÏjury's€verdict€in€the€following€manner:€€"Count€5:€We€the€Jury,€find€the€defendant,ÏJames€Thomas€Jefferson,€€guilty€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€impose€aÍsentence€of€40€years."Ìà àBoth€the€state€and€the€appellant€filed€post„trial€motions€that€addressed€theÏœverdict.›€€The€state's€motion€alleged€that€the€punishment€imposed€by€the€jury,€forty€(40)Ïyears,€"is€a€void€and€illegal€sentence€in€that€the€only€possible€punishment€for€theÏoffense€of€First€Degree€Murder€as€to€this€defendant€is€Life€Imprisonment."€€TheÏappellant's€motion€opposed€the€imposition€of€a€life€sentence.€€He€asked€the€trial€courtÏto€enter€a€judgment€in€conformity€with€the€jury's€verdict,€i.e.,€forty€(40)€yearsÏconfinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction.Ìà àThe€trial€court€agreed€with€the€state€that€the€only€punishment€was€confinementÏfor€life€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€trial€court€directed€the€state€to€submit€anÏappropriate€judgment€form€reflecting€that€the€punishment€imposed€was€confinementÏfor€life€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Thereafter,€the€trial€court€entered€a€judgmentÏsentencing€the€appellant€to€life.Ìà àIn€this€Court,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€punishment€of€life€imprisonment€forÏmurder€in€the€first€degree€was€unconstitutional,€the€trial€court€should€have€reduced€theÏgrade€of€the€offense€to€murder€in€the€second€degree,€and€œpermitted›€the€sentence€ofÏforty€(40)€years€to€remain€in€effect.€€In€the€alternative,€the€appellant€contends€that€if€theÏpunishment€was€below€the€minimum€punishment€for€murder€in€the€first€degree,€thisÏCourt€should€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€HeÏalso€contends€that€the€imposition€of€a€life€sentence€violates€the€constitutionalÏprohibition€against€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€laws.Ìà àThe€state€takes€issue€with€the€arguments€advanced€by€the€appellant.€€ItÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€properly€entered€a€life€sentence.ÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔÌA.ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà à€€In€a€series€of€opinions,€the€Supreme€Court€declared€that€all€statutesÏproscribing€€death€as€a€possible€punishment€were€unconstitutional.€€In€òòState€v.ÏHaileyóó,× ƒý ××  ×€the€court€held€that€Chapter€192€Public€Acts€of€1973€was€unconstitutionalÏbecause€it€violated€Article€II,€ðð17€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€Act€passed€byÏthe€General€Assembly€embraced€more€than€one€subject,€but€the€caption€of€the€Act€didÏnot€contain€all€of€the€subjects€contained€in€the€Act.€€In€òòCollins€v.€Stateóó,× ƒþ ××  ×€the€court€heldÏthat€Chapter€462,€ðð3€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1974€was€unconstitutional€because€itÏprovided€for€a€mandatory€death€sentence.€€The€court€remanded€the€case€forÏresentencing€only.€€It€stated€that€the€proper€punishment€range€was€twenty€(20)€years€toÏlife.€€In€òòState€v.€Milleróó,× ƒÿ ××  ×€where€the€accused€was€sentenced€to€death€pursuant€to€theÏstatute€held€unconstitutional€in€òòCollinsóó,€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€last€statuteÏimposing€a€constitutionally€valid€punishment€for€first€degree€murder€was€Public€Acts€ofÏ1915,€ch.€181.× ƒ ××  ×€€This€statute€abolished€the€death€sentence€and€provided€that€theÏpunishment€for€murder€in€the€first€degree€was€confinement€for€life€in€the€penitentiary.€ÏòòMilleróó€is€the€last€time€that€this€subject€was€considered€by€the€Supreme€Court.Ìà àThe€appellant€argues€that€òòMilleróó€is€wrong€in€holding€that€the€last€validÏpunishment€for€first€degree€murder€was€life€imprisonment€pursuant€to€Public€Acts€ofÏ1915,€ch.€181.€€The€appellant€takes€issue€with€this€analysis€because€there€was€a€threeÏday€period€in€January€of€1919€in€which€no€punishment€for€first€degree€murder€existed.€ÏThis€three€day€period€occurred€between€the€time€when€Chapter€181€of€the€Public€ActsÏof€1915€was€repealed,€January€27,€1919,× ƒ ××  ×€and€the€next€punishment€statute€wasÏpassed,€January€30,€1919.× ƒ ××  ×€€Since€the€punishment€for€first€degree€murder€in€ChapterÏ181€was€repealed€by€legislative€act,€appellant€argues€that€its€reenactment€can€only€beÏaccomplished€by€legislative€act€rather€than€by€a€courtððs€ruling.× ƒ ××  ×€€Therefore,€inÏsearching€for€a€former€valid€act€under€the€analysis€of€òòMilleróó,€there€is€no€validÏpunishment€statute€to€be€left€in€full€force€and€effect€since€Chapter€181€was€repealed€byÏa€Public€Act€rather€than€merely€superseded.€€This€analysis€as€argued€by€the€appellantÏwas€not€addressed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòMilleróó.Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€Chapter€181€of€the€Public€Acts€ofÏ1915€is€validly€applied€in€the€place€of€later,€unconstitutional€punishment€statutes.€€TheÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals,€as€an€intermediate€court,€must€follow€the€decisions€of€theÍSupreme€Court.€€This€Court€may€not€alter,€modify,€revise,€modernize,€or€overrule€aÏdecision€of€the€Supreme€Court.× ƒ ××  ×€€As€the€Supreme€Court€said€in€the€case€of€òòBarger€v.ÏBrockóó:ÌÓÓÌœà8 àà8 à[T]he›€Supreme€Court€is€a€direct€creature€of€the€ConstitutionÏand€constitutes€the€supreme€judicial€tribunal€of€the€stateÏand€is€a€court€of€last€resort.€€All€other€courts€areÏconstitutionally€inferior€tribunals€subject€to€the€actions€of€theÏSupreme€Court.€€Its€adjudications€are€final€and€conclusiveÏupon€all€questions€determined€by€it,€subject€only€to€review,Ïin€appropriate€cases€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€UnitedÏStates.× ƒ ××  ×ÌÌœÌÓÓ›à àThe€crimes€in€this€case€occurred€on€June€15,€1968,€long€before€the€enactmentÏof€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1982.€€The€1993€trial€occurredÏafter€the€enactment€of€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€ÏHowever,€neither€the€1982€nor€the€1989€act€was€applicable€to€this€case.× ƒ ××  ×€€The€jury,€asÏthe€trier€of€fact,€was€required€to€determine€the€appellant's€guilt,€the€grade€of€theÏoffense,€if€guilty,€and€the€length€of€the€sentence€he€should€serve.à àÌà àIn€summary,€this€Court€is€bound€by€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòMilleróó€thatÏthe€only€possible€punishment€for€first€degree€murder€is€life€imprisonment.€€The€trialÍcourt,€an€inferior€court€like€this€Court,€was€required€to€follow€òòMilleróó€€as€well.€€Thus,€theÏtrial€court€gave€the€jury€an€erroneous€instruction€regarding€the€punishment€for€firstÏdegree€murder.€€€The€question€this€Court€must€now€resolve€is€whether€the€trial€courtÏhad€the€right€to€amend€the€clearly€erroneous€verdict€of€the€jury€by€striking€theÏpunishment€fixed€by€the€jury,€forty€years,€and€sentencing€the€appellant€to€life€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.ÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ€¼ÔB.ó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  Óà àWhen€a€jury,€as€the€trier€of€fact,€returns€an€incomplete€or€inaccurate€verdict€thatÏdoes€not€conform€to€the€applicable€law,€the€verdict€is€illegal,€a€nullity,€and,€therefore,Ïvoid.× ƒ ××  ×€€As€a€result,€a€trial€court€cannot€accept€the€verdict€because€a€judgment€cannotÏbe€pronounced€upon€a€void€verdict.× ƒ ××  ×€€If€the€verdict€is€to€be€corrected,€the€trial€courtÏmust€take€immediate€action€before€the€jury€is€discharged.× ƒ  ××  ×€€€The€trial€court€shouldÍadvise€the€jury€that€the€court€cannot€accept€the€verdict,€direct€the€jury€to€either€rereadÏthe€charge€given€by€the€court€or€the€court€can€give€a€supplemental€charge,€and€haveÏthe€jury€retire€to€consider€its€verdict.€€As€the€Supreme€Court€said€in€òòJones€v.€Stateóó:ÌÓÓÌœà8 àà8 àThe›€trial€judge€has€both€the€power€and€the€duty€to€requireÏthat€the€jury€correct€or€amend€an€improper€or€incompleteÏverdict.€.€.€.€€The€trial€judge€has€the€right€and€duty€to€mold€aÏjudgment€in€accordance€with€€the€final€verdict€returned€byÏthe€jury.€.€.€.€€But€this€does€not€carry€with€it€the€right€toÏsubstitute€for€the€rendered€verdict€a€judgment€that€isÏsubstantially€different.× ƒ  ××  ×ÌÌÌÓÓOnce€the€jury€is€discharged,€its€verdict€can€not€be€amended€or€corrected€by€the€trialÏcourt€as€to€the€grade€of€the€offense€or€the€sentence€imposed.× ƒ  ××  ×Ìà àIn€òòStrunk€v.€Stateóó,× ƒ  ××  ×€the€jury€convicted€the€accused€of€robbery€with€a€deadlyÏweapon.€€The€jury€sentenced€the€accused€to€confinement€for€five€(5)€years.€€TheÏminimum€sentence€for€this€offense€was€ten€(10)€years.€€€The€Supreme€Court€said€thatÏthis€was€an€illegal€verdict.€€The€court€held€that€the€trial€court€properly€required€the€juryÏto€correct€this€illegal€sentence.€€The€jury€returned€with€a€valid€sentence€of€ten€years.Ìà àIn€òòAlexander€v.€Stateóó,× ƒ ××  ×€the€jury€convicted€the€accused€of€driving€while€underÏinfluence.€€The€jury€set€the€punishment€at€$25€and€30€days€confinement,€which€the€juryÍsuspended.€€The€trial€court€simply€struck€the€word€"suspended"€from€the€verdict€andÏpronounced€judgment.€€The€Supreme€Court€reversed€the€sentence€only€and€left€theÏguilty€verdict€intact.€€The€court€held€that€the€sentencing€verdict,€as€returned€by€the€jury,Ïwas€illegal€and€a€nullity€because€the€jury€was€not€authorized€by€law€to€suspend€aÏsentence.€€The€court€further€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€authority€to€alter€orÏamend€the€judgment€of€sentence€„„€only€the€jury€had€that€authority.Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,× ƒ ××  ×€the€jury€convicted€the€accused€of€murder€in€the€secondÏdegree€which€had€a€statutory€punishment€range€of€imprisonment€for€life€to€ten€or€moreÏyears.€€The€jury€imposed€a€sentence€that€read€"not€less€than€ten€years."€€The€jury€wasÏordered€to€reconsider€its€verdict.€€The€jury€returned€with€a€verdict€of€"not€less€[sic]€tenÏyears€but€not€more€than€fifteen."€€The€sentence€was€required€to€be€expressed€in€aÏdefinite€number€of€years.€€The€Supreme€Court€reversed€and€remanded€ð ðfor€a€new€trialÏlimited€to€the€single€issue€of€punishment.ðð€€The€court€said€that€the€judgment€wasÏ"facially€void"€because€the€jury€failed€to€express€the€punishment€in€terms€of€a€fixedÏperiod€of€years.× ƒ ××  ×Ìà àIn€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,× ƒ ××  ×€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€twenty€(20)€years.€€TheÏsentence€had€to€exceed€twenty€years.€€The€trial€court€refused€to€accept€the€verdict€andÏrequired€the€jury€to€reconsider€its€verdict.€€The€jury€returned€a€sentence€of€twenty„oneÍyears.€€This€Court€held€that€the€trial€court€properly€required€the€jury€to€reconsider€theÏlength€of€the€sentence.€The€first€verdict€was€void€because€it€set€the€punishment€at€lessÏthan€the€statutory€minimum€for€the€offense.Ìà àIn€òòJenkins€v.€Stateóó,× ƒ ××  ×€the€jury€found€the€accused€guilty€of€aiding€and€abettingÏthe€offense€of€murder€in€the€second€degree.€€The€jury€set€the€punishment€at€five€(5)Ïyears.€€The€minimum€punishment€for€the€offense€was€ten€(10)€years.€€The€trial€courtÏrequired€the€jury€to€reconsider€the€sentence.€€The€jury€returned€with€a€sentence€of€tenÏ(10)€years.€€This€Court,€stating€the€initial€verdict€returned€by€the€jury€was€a€nullity,€heldÏthat€the€trial€court€properly€required€the€jury€to€reconsider€its€verdict.Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€verdict€returned€by€the€jury€was€void€because€the€punishmentÏset€by€the€jury€was€below€the€minimum€punishment€for€the€offense€of€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree.× ƒ ××  ×€€The€trial€court€did€not€have€the€authority€to€change€the€jury's€verdict€fromÏforty€(40)€years€to€confinement€for€life€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Since€the€juryÏfound€the€appellant€guilty€of€premeditated€murder€and€the€evidence€contai